If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WRCB)   Social Security not deal it once was for workers, reports Ric Romero   (wrcbtv.com) divider line 164
    More: Obvious, Ric Romero, social security, Andrew Biggs, private prisons, Urban Institute, Chinese dissidents, martian atmosphere, Standard & Poor  
•       •       •

6768 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Aug 2012 at 5:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



164 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-05 04:59:20 PM  
This is the deceptive headline. The writer of this story was not an individual named Ric Romero as is stated by submitter but instead one written by Stephen Ohlemacher which can be noticed in the byline of this. It is this type of deceptive practice upon which causes the confusion. Please do not let this happen again.

Now about the article it seems so very much obvious. It reminds me of this writer from Los Angeles who did the reporting for KABC. He always reports the most obvious things. I cannot remember the name of this individual for the life of me but this just seems like the type of article he would do the writing of.
 
2012-08-05 05:18:18 PM  
Everyday I'm more and more certain that FDR is going to go down as one of history's greatest monsters, alongside Jimmy Carter and Reagan.
 
2012-08-05 05:18:20 PM  
They have altered the deal, pray they do not alter it any further.
 
2012-08-05 05:22:44 PM  
You mean the legal, gubmint supported Ponzi scheme doesn't work? I'm shocked I tell you. Good thing we've won the war on poverty and are taking aim at health care!!
 
2012-08-05 05:24:37 PM  
Headline written by caveman.
 
2012-08-05 05:27:38 PM  
So how is it that Social Security is unsustainable?
Sounds like a win-win for the taxpayers that put into it.

Remember Bush/Cheney wanted to privatize it??
They wanted to do what my employer did to me.

Yea, I had my company pension pulled out from me and now I am left with the Casino/401k stock market.
 
2012-08-05 05:30:43 PM  
Mean Daddy: You mean the legal, gubmint supported Ponzi scheme doesn't work? I'm shocked I tell you. Good thing we've won the war on poverty and are taking aim at health care!!

Pretty much. If you're in the workforce now, and don't understand that social security will not exist for 'our' generation (that is, the 20-30s going in now), I'm so sorry. Even my 60 year old parents get a few hundred dollars a month and that's about it.

I second the 'yay federal health care' thing, cause America as a whole has a really shiatty track record with this stuff. It works in other countries because they are other countries, and are set up differently on a lot of aspects.
 
2012-08-05 05:31:47 PM  
I have yet to hear of anyone buying a similar retirement plan with both survivor and disability insurance for a lower cost.
 
2012-08-05 05:34:30 PM  
That headline was painful to read.
 
2012-08-05 05:35:28 PM  
Wait... 12.4% of salary for 40 years giving a paltry payout on retirement is a bad deal?
 
2012-08-05 05:37:03 PM  
Early investors make out better than later investors. Eventually the system collapses. That sounds very similar to some other kind of scheme. What was it called? Just can't put my finger on it.
 
2012-08-05 05:37:15 PM  
FTFA: Because of spousal benefits, most married couples with only one wage earner will continue to get more in benefits than they pay in taxes for the foreseeable future.

i1.ytimg.com

This is also one reason why gay marriage matters.

And no, I don't feel sorry for the people (gay or straight) who want to never get married and wind up paying more in taxes. Just think of it as the price you pay for your freedom.
 
2012-08-05 05:39:13 PM  
PillsHere: That headline was painful to read.

This
 
2012-08-05 05:39:24 PM  
Oldiron_79: They have altered the deal, pray they do not alter it any further.

static.guim.co.uk

wut?
 
2012-08-05 05:44:43 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-05 05:46:32 PM  

jigger: Early investors make out better than later investors. Eventually the system collapses. That sounds very similar to some other kind of scheme. What was it called? Just can't put my finger on it.


Romney's economic plan.
 
2012-08-05 05:48:24 PM  
Summary:

Boomers kept the taxes low while they worked, and now will live off of any thing that left in the bank, which will run dry just at about the same time they should be dying off.

Good plan.
 
2012-08-05 05:49:46 PM  
If everyone under age 20 just murders someone between the ages of 45 and 65 we'll be fine...

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2012-08-05 05:50:53 PM  

LemSkroob: Summary:

Boomers kept the taxes low while they worked, and now will live off of any thing that left in the bank, which will run dry just at about the same time they should be dying off.

Good plan.


You know what would be even better? Grant amnesty for illegals.
 
2012-08-05 05:51:12 PM  
All they needed to do (or at least it would have helped) was to not PAY OUT immediately, as the very first people got thousands without contributing (as I understand it but may be wrong). In other words, there should have been a generation of collection to set it up before the payouts started, so that people would have more truly contributed to their own retirements. But I guess there would have been a lot of opposition, as some would have fared worse than others and to the goodie train needed political support to push off.

Another problem is the children of deceased getting payments in some cases. I know of a couple who had both lost former spouses, who married and together could QUIT WORK because the blended family had enough children to make out fairly well with the combined payments. Both were able bodied but the rest of us now have to support them. How does that make sense?

And disability is always a potential leakage point. It is notoriously stiff to sign onto, for good reason. It's too tempting for discouraged workers, who might have been happy to find a job but when they can't, they uncover some disability (that would not be prohibitive) as it seems like a way out. I don't have a problem with deserving people getting disability but also hope the government doesn't yield on its standards. Again, I've read that thousands more have swollen the rolls in the recession (beyond what would be expected). So either we've had a strange increase in disabilities or else we had a lot of disabled people who were hidden in the (former) workforce.
 
2012-08-05 05:54:10 PM  
Is this the thread where we use projections of 80 years to make it seem like social security is going to fold next Tuesday?

So we need to radically change it now. Because people in 1932 obviously knew what the world economy was going to look like in 2012?

Everything I've read says there's some small issues in about 50 years if we do nothing to shore it up, and adjust some payouts. 50 years ago was 1962... I'm sure we can think of something that doesn't involve privatizing it and giving investment banks free access to the elderly security net.

They've done so well being steward of the 21st century world economy after all; with the bank failures, market crashes and general douchbaggery.
 
2012-08-05 05:56:59 PM  
1) Means test the payout
2) Eliminate the withholding cap
3) Raise the social security "retirement age"

/1 & 2 will never happen
 
2012-08-05 05:58:20 PM  
On top of this, you already paid this out in taxes, at almost 25% of your gross income (counting the employer side). If like my mom, you planned well and have income available to deal with "end-of-life" (which may be many years), the Social Security Income is taxable yet again.
 
2012-08-05 05:58:52 PM  
I wonder if I would be ahead today had I put all my social security payments in a shoebox under the bed rather than give them to Uncle Sam.
 
2012-08-05 06:00:49 PM  

fromafar: Again, I've read that thousands more have swollen the rolls in the recession (beyond what would be expected). So either we've had a strange increase in disabilities or else we had a lot of disabled people who were hidden in the (former) workforce.


My hypothesis: There is always a segment of the working population that suffers from back pain or [tolerable] injuries with only some impairment, but they put up with it because it's not too distracting, and they just can't afford not to work. Then the economy tanks, these people (along with millions of other folks, of course) can't find jobs, and then unemployment checks stop coming. With no viable employment in sight, these folks play up their "disabilities"---something they were able to live with and work around before---to get on the disability rolls, since even SSI is better than nothing.
 
2012-08-05 06:01:31 PM  
Social Security would be fine if congresscritters stopped stealing the money.

I say the coffer is full of IOUs, and those IOUs damn well better get payed back.
 
2012-08-05 06:03:49 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: Social Security would be fine if congresscritters stopped stealing the money.

I say the coffer is full of IOUs, and those IOUs damn well better get payed back.


HAH
 
2012-08-05 06:05:54 PM  
lol I love the ignorant "raise the retirement age" statement... as if they haven't already farking done that to ridiculous levels
 
2012-08-05 06:06:04 PM  
As soon as the Baby Boomers are dead there is no problem with Social Security, says this Generation Xer whose peers are greatly outnumbered by future payroll taxpayers.
 
2012-08-05 06:07:51 PM  
I'm confused, subby. Are you telling me it's no longer a Ponzi scheme?
 
2012-08-05 06:07:58 PM  

studebaker hoch: I wonder if I would be ahead today had I put all my social security payments in a shoebox under the bed rather than give them to Uncle Sam.



It's pretty simple math
 
2012-08-05 06:12:48 PM  

Four Horsemen of the Domestic Dispute: So how is it that Social Security is unsustainable?


Because it requires a population growth rate that is higher than what we have, a life expectancy that is lower, or economic growth an order of magnitude higher than is possible for a developed nation in order to pay what it has promised. That's kind of the definition of unsustainable.

Sounds like a win-win for the taxpayers that put into it.

Yeah, bubbles are always nice until they burst.

Yea, I had my company pension pulled out from me and now I am left with the Casino/401k stock market.

Sounds like you're better off. Your company probably couldn't have stayed solvent if they kept your pension. It's much better that you are getting your money up front and can plan accordingly. 401ks don't require you to assume your company will be flush with cash 50 years down the line.
 
2012-08-05 06:17:06 PM  

kroonermanblack: I second the 'yay federal health care' thing, cause America as a whole has a really shiatty track record with this stuff. It works in other countries because they are other countries, and are set up differently on a lot of aspects.


Why do you think other countries are better than America?

Love it or leave it.
 
2012-08-05 06:24:22 PM  

stirfrybry: lol I love the ignorant "raise the retirement age" statement... as if they haven't already farking done that to ridiculous levels


spoken like a lazy, entitled douche.

when SS was instituted, the life expectancy was LOWER than the "retirement age". now, life expectancy exceeds retirement age by 15+ years. Social security has not kept pace with life expectancy.
 
2012-08-05 06:25:45 PM  

Dafatone: Why do you think other countries are better than America?


Empirical evidence?
 
2012-08-05 06:26:36 PM  
I am 29. I see it as a pretty unfair tax levied on m me I can only take so listen the fact that some of the money is helping some people I can only take solace in the fact that some of the money is helping some people who need it today. I consider it a form of disability insurance and not any part if my retirement.
 
2012-08-05 06:27:28 PM  
Quaint. I can't imagine the types of lives you guys lead where this is your plan for retirement. I feel sorry for you people.
 
2012-08-05 06:27:37 PM  

HawkEyes: I am 29. I see it as a pretty unfair tax levied on m me I can only take so listen the fact that some of the money is helping some people I can only take solace in the fact that some of the money is helping some people who need it today. I consider it a form of disability insurance and not any part if my retirement.


That's why I never post from my phone. Sorry.
 
2012-08-05 06:29:47 PM  
The good news is that a Totino's pizza costs about the same amount as a healthy serving of cat food for an adult, so they can eat a little better. Not much, cause it's Totinos, but at least it's not cat food.
 
2012-08-05 06:32:07 PM  
Social Security is not the deal it once was for workers, reports Ric Romero

Done this subby, with how long some of these headlines are. Few words.
 
2012-08-05 06:35:43 PM  

Let's set some things straight:

1. Social Security is insurance, not an investment plan

Social Security... The Fundamental Truth

If you don't understand this, you don't understand Social Security. If you do understand it, all the rest is minor technical detail... or utter nonsense.

Social Security is not welfare. Social Security is not an investment plan. Social Security is insurance... to avoid welfare if your investment plan doesn't work out as well as you hope.

Because of the complexity of the modern economy Social Security is insurance that is needed more often than not. It does what the family used to do under the guidance of "Honor your father and your mother."
But even there you have to understand that while "you" helped out your parents in their old age, they "paid for" that help, first by paying for their own parents in their turn; and second, by paying for you when you were very young; and third, by building the "infrastructure" that made it easier for you when it came your turn to work for a living.

There is nothing about Social Security that guarantees you will always have higher benefits than your parents, or pay lower "taxes." The world changes. There are fat years and lean years.

2. Social Security has been an enormous force for good

Social Security and Elderly Poverty
Elderly poverty in the U.S. decreased dramatically during the twentieth century. Between 1960 and 1995, the official poverty rate of those aged 65 and above fell from 35 percent to 10 percent, and research has documented similarly steep declines dating back to at least 1939. While poverty was once far more prevalent among the elderly than among other age groups, today's elderly have a poverty rate similar to that of working-age adults and much lower than that of children.

www.nber.org

3. Social Security is needed now more than ever

Study: Nearly half of Americans die with 'virtually no financial assets'
How much do senior citizens rely on Social Security? Even more than you might think. A new study finds that more than 46 percent of Americans die with less than $10,000 in financial assets, with many spending the end of their life strongly dependent on the government."

"Many of these households also have no housing wealth and rely almost entirely on Social Security benefits for support," says the study, co-authored by MIT's James Poterba, Dartmouth's Steven Venti, and Harvard's David Wise.


SOCIAL SECURITY KEEPS 20 MILLION AMERICANS OUT OF POVERTY: A STATE-BY-STATE ANALYSIS (pdf)
Social Security benefits play a vital role in reducing poverty. Without Social Security, according to the latest available Census data (for 2008), 19.8 million more Americans would be poor. Although most of those kept out of poverty by Social Security are elderly, nearly a third are under age 65, including 1.1 million children. (See Table 1.) Depending on their design, reductions in Social Security benefits could significantly increase poverty, particularly among the elderly.

4. Social Security is not insolvent, bankrupt, or anything of the kind

Before you write that Social Security is bankrupt....
The most important take-away points from the 2012 Trustees Report will be that Social Security has a large and growing surplus; that without any Congressional action, Social Security will continue to pay benefits to America's eligible working families for decades; and that with modest legislated increases in revenue, it will continue to pay those benefits for the next century and beyond.


Are we clear?
 
2012-08-05 06:36:28 PM  

xl5150: Quaint. I can't imagine the types of lives you guys lead where this is your plan for retirement. I feel sorry for you people.


So should I buy or sell?

/Thank you
 
2012-08-05 06:42:09 PM  

The_Original_Roxtar: stirfrybry: lol I love the ignorant "raise the retirement age" statement... as if they haven't already farking done that to ridiculous levels

spoken like a lazy, entitled douche.

when SS was instituted, the life expectancy was LOWER than the "retirement age". now, life expectancy exceeds retirement age by 15+ years. Social security has not kept pace with life expectancy.



LOL I'm a blue collar guy expected to work (real physical labor) till I'm 72 and you call me entitled.
Now I've heard it all. you are an idiot
 
2012-08-05 06:43:38 PM  
FizixJunkee: fromafar: Again, I've read that thousands more have swollen the rolls in the recession (beyond what would be expected). So either we've had a strange increase in disabilities or else we had a lot of disabled people who were hidden in the (former) workforce.

My hypothesis: There is always a segment of the working population that suffers from back pain or [tolerable] injuries with only some impairment, but they put up with it because it's not too distracting, and they just can't afford not to work. Then the economy tanks, these people (along with millions of other folks, of course) can't find jobs, and then unemployment checks stop coming. With no viable employment in sight, these folks play up their "disabilities"---something they were able to live with and work around before---to get on the disability rolls, since even SSI is better than nothing.


Getting SS disability payments is no easy task. Most of the time you need to file multiple appeals and even go to court to get it. People scamming disability is even more rare than the mythical welfare queens, because you need collusion for a media professional AND have to go through the court system in most cases. Even when you get it, the payments are tiny. You are not going to get disability for "back pain".

Most people screaming about fraud "disability" is actually from public jobs and pension abuse, not SS disability. Like Firefighters that get put on disability and get a fat pension payment while also working a desk job (if at all), and doing side jobs outside that make you question why they're on disability. That's not the same thing, and it's much easier to do because it's a form of pension fraud with public service unions protecting them in most cases. That is a problem, and states / the law should come down hard on those freeloaders.
 
2012-08-05 06:44:15 PM  

BMFPitt: Four Horsemen of the Domestic Dispute: So how is it that Social Security is unsustainable?

Because it requires a population growth rate that is higher than what we have, a life expectancy that is lower, or economic growth an order of magnitude higher than is possible for a developed nation in order to pay what it has promised. That's kind of the definition of unsustainable.


it would have been sustainable, but the boomers used the surplus they ran for 40 years to give themselves tax cuts. the trust fund is a gigantic IOU.
 
2012-08-05 06:45:58 PM  
Ya well people always want something for nothing and then biatch if they can't have it. If we want to have long retirements, then we have to pay more in to a retirement account when we work. Just how it goes.

People seem to forget that when SS was formed people didn't live much longer, on average, than the retirement age. So it didn't have to pay out for many years in most cases. That left plenty for the few who did live longer, those who got disabled and got SS for that reason, and so on.

Not the case anymore. People tend to live quite a while, and they want to retire and enjoy it. Fair enough, but the amount paid in has to go up for that to work. You can't pay out many more years on average and not change what you collect.

However while voting in increases to SS payouts makes people happy, voting in increases to SS taxes makes them mad, hence the current shortfall problem.

Unfortunately, nothing is likely to be done. Politicians will simply keep letting it lie for future generations, until it is a crisis. Then either payments will drop to about 60% of promised levels (it is funded by taxes, it'll never 'go broke'), taxes will be increased a whole bunch to cover the difference, or some combination. Sad because the sooner we act, the less drastic and increase/cuts have to be but it just won't happen until it is a crisis.
 
2012-08-05 06:46:09 PM  
Social Security was turned into a supplemental welfare program during the Carter administration. Now benefits are given from SS funds rather than state or fed welfare programs. People getting full benefits without ever paying a dime is the primary problem. Removing SS funds from the separate line item outside the Fed budget in order to appear to have a balanced budget was the beginning of the end of self supporting SS.
 
2012-08-05 06:46:38 PM  

stirfrybry: The_Original_Roxtar: stirfrybry: lol I love the ignorant "raise the retirement age" statement... as if they haven't already farking done that to ridiculous levels

spoken like a lazy, entitled douche.

when SS was instituted, the life expectancy was LOWER than the "retirement age". now, life expectancy exceeds retirement age by 15+ years. Social security has not kept pace with life expectancy.


LOL I'm a blue collar guy expected to work (real physical labor) till I'm 72 and you call me entitled.
Now I've heard it all. you are an idiot


you expect the rest of us to pay for your living expenses.
that's why I call you entitled.
 
2012-08-05 06:46:50 PM  
So instead of eating cat food when I retire I will have to eat cats?

/time to brush up on my asian cooking skills
 
2012-08-05 06:46:53 PM  

DoctorCal: 1) Means test the payout
2) Eliminate the withholding cap
3) Raise the social security "retirement age"

/1 & 2 will never happen


Yup. Want to make the tax code more progressive and better fund SS? Eliminate that cap
 
Displayed 50 of 164 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report