Re: Refresher Course on Social Security

On Mar 11, 12:43 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"mg" <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1173587567.170535.316840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Mar 10, 11:12 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"mg" <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1173545582.727981.77660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mar 9, 8:10 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"mg" <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1173487909.684085.249260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mar 9, 8:43 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"mg" <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1173410035.175824.315600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mar 8, 2:29 pm, "California Poppy" <GoldenStatePo...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
I am still working part-time for a city rec & park department.
They
have their own retirement program rather than SS, which is what
I
think all should be. I was given 19 choices of mutual funds.
They
are labeled as growth, income, and stability. We were given
their
3-
year average % increase. I chose a Conservative Growth
Lifestyle
Fund for 50% of my retirement and a Core Bond Fund for 50%, but
I
could have chose any fund and any percentage, and I could change
any
year. This is what should be available for everyone.

A "city rec & park department" is a government agency that feeds
from
the public trough. They're not subject to the ups and downs of
the
free-enterprise system. They don't have to make a profit. If you
are
suggesting they're system should be extended to private
corporations,
you're comparing apples and oranges.

No she is saying that what is good for the goose is good for the
gander.
She is saying she works for a government agency who offers her an
opportunity to invest her money and provide her with a chance to
make
a
better return on her investment.

She also said:

"They have their own retirement program rather than SS, which is
what
I think all should be."

In otherwords what she is apparently saying is that state and local
government employees don't participate in the SS program, therefore
it
should be eliminated.

Well, either fix it, or do away with it, and start from
scratch..because
it
ain't doing such a good job right now.- Hide quoted text -

I don't know if it is such a big problem in the overall scheme of
things. To me it looks a lot like Bush tried to pull the same sort of
Chicken Little thing with Social Security that he did with the WMDs in
Iraq and then solve the problem in the same way--by destroying it.

-> Tell that to those who only have a
-> social security income to live on....-

Do you think people would get more under the Bush plan, for instance?

Yes. Had his idea of allowing people to allow 2% of their contributions to
be put into something like a mutual fund, the people who took that option
would have more money to spend when they retire. no one can take that money
away from them, and since it is clearly their money, their heirs should be
able to get that money. "If" the idea had worked, that would have made it a
whole lot easier to address the fiscal imbalance problem with Social
Security, because whatever you have to do to fix the problem will be easier
to fix, when there are some percentage of the population that is not going
to be affected very much by the change.

Are you aware that under Bush's plan, about 2/3 of your Social
Security money would go into a new, means-tested welfare program?

The current program, undoubtedly has some "welfare" components to it.
Non-working wife's, for instance, get benefits even though they've put
nothing into the system. However, Bush's plan would turn Social
Security into a pure welfare program paid for by those who contribute
to Social Security.

According to an article in USA Today, reductions for various workers
would be as follows:

Low Income ($16,428 in 2005)
2025: 0%
2045: 0%
2075: 0%

Average Income ($36,507 in 2005)
2025: -6%
2045: -16%
2075: -28%

Maximum ($90,000 in 2005)
2025: -11%
2045: -29%
2075: -49%

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-05-01-gamble-edit_x.htm
http://tinyurl.com/32z6k7





















.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT - Thank you suckers
    ... Why are you investing your own money privately? ... partial privatization of Social Security plan? ... 5% of their money back and let them invest it privately. ... Saving for retirement is a long-term process. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: U.S. Heading For Financial Trouble?
    ... In just ten years, somewhere around 2017, Social Security ... Fund. ... he fails to indicate other sources of money in item #1 above. ... The cap has already been removed for Medicare and while it will not solve *that* problem, it appears that it would bring solvency to Social Security and change a regressive tax into a flat tax. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT - Oh, You Mean THOSE Weapons Of Mass Destruction
    ... into todays dollars, added interest at 4%, looked up my benefits, and calculated that I'd have to live to 93 before I got my money back. ... Social Security funding separate from the General Fund, ... to do with how the government funds it). ... of a gradual migration to private retirement funds, ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: Attention Bush fans ~ Bush says global warming is real
    ... "It isn't the Government's Money." ... violence and incarceration is called "government" how is it that you call it ... Many of the retirees are making more off their non-SSI retirement packages ... Social Security Scheme, so it is in their best interest to keep it as ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: U.S. Heading For Financial Trouble?
    ... In just ten years, somewhere around 2017, Social Security ... Fund. ... he fails to indicate other sources of money in item #1 above. ... The cap has already been removed for Medicare and while it will not solve *that* problem, it appears that it would bring solvency to Social Security and change a regressive tax into a flat tax. ...
    (soc.retirement)