Interesting times ahead....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...88485db045&e=4

Whose Social Security Stash Is It?

The International Star Registry was way ahead of President Bush and
his "ownership society." Long before the President ever thought of
giving people their own little piece of Social Security the
International Star Registry was giving folks their own little pieces of
the night sky. For $54, plus shipping and handling, the organization
gives you your very own star. Call it an intergalactic ownership
society.

Of course, stars aren't the same as retirement money. The International
Star Registry is quite frank that you don't actually own your star. You
just get to give it a name (which, by the way, isn't recognized by
scientific authorities). In contrast, President Bush argues that the
money in the private accounts really, really would be yours.

"I think people ought to be encouraged to own something in America.
You'll be owning a part of your retirement account. It's actually your
money to begin with. It's not the government's money," Bush said on
Feb. 4 in Little Rock, Ark., during his tour to promote his Social
Security ideas.

UNTOUCHABLE. But would you really own this money? The more you hear
about the details of Bush's plan, the more you wonder whether you would
actually own the money in your private account -- any more than you can
claim to own a burning ball of gas thousands of light years away.

One thing ownership means is being able to do what you want with
something. But under the Bush plan, you'd be given just a small range
of approved options of how to invest "your money."

What kind of ownership is that? When money really is yours -- like your
take-home pay -- the government has no say over how you invest it.
Gold? Pork bellies? Santa Monica real estate? Go for it.

Or a new car. If your retirement stash is truly your money, you should
be able to spend some of it on a new SUV -- or a college education, or
nursing care for an elderly parent. That wouldn't be allowed under the
Bush plan. People wouldn't be able to touch the money in their accounts
until they retired.

BIG BACK DOOR. In fact, for people below a certain income cutoff, the
money in their accounts might be as untouchable as Alpha Centauri.
Under the plan Bush is advocating, people whose Social Security income
alone would leave them below the poverty line -- a very large group --
would have to put all the money in their accounts toward buying an
annuity. That's a monthly payment that would continue until they die
(just like the Social Security checks they already get).

Another mark of real ownership is that the thing you own can't be taken
away from you. And it's true that Uncle Sam wouldn't be able to take
the money out of private accounts. But the system has a wide-open back
door. While the government can't take money out of private accounts, it
certainly can cut back on the benefits in the traditional part of
Social Security.

Indeed, cutting benefits is exactly what President Bush is planning to
do. The whole rationale for private accounts is that they'll earn good
returns and offset the reduced benefit.

LEFT POCKET, RIGHT POCKET. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to
imagine what could happen in a decade or so. Let's say private accounts
are a huge success and Americans accumulate scads of money in them.
Let's also say Washington is still trying to fix traditional Social
Security's finances. In that case, lawmakers will simply cut
traditional benefits by roughly the same amount as the windfall in the
private accounts.

So the government can't take money out of your left pocket -- that's
the private account. But it can accomplish the same thing by taking
money from your right pocket, the traditional benefit. And you'll be
just as helpless as if you never had a private account in the first
place.

Nothing, really, will have changed.

Is this wrong? Actually, no. President Bush has good reasons for
creating a system that puts tight restrictions on private accounts.

LOGICAL AND DEFENSIBLE. If people can invest in anything they want,
many will make stupid choices, go broke, and end up requiring help from
the government. Same thing with letting people take money out in a lump
sum, either before or after retirement. If they blow the money, they'll
wind up on the public dole.

From the viewpoint of future workers, it might even be logical and
defensible for the government some day to offset windfalls in private
accounts by cutting government-guaranteed benefits.

The problem isn't the restrictions on ownership in the Bush plan. It's
the false billing, which is aimed at drumming up support from a
skeptical public.

You won't really "own" the money in your private account. Likewise, you
can't own stars in the sky. At least the International Star Registry is
up-front enough to admit it.

Okay, I own my house and lot. Can I cut down all the trees on the lot?
The City says NO. Can I use it for a business? The City says NO. So
according to you I don't really own my house and lot.

Next. I get Social Security now. Can I pass that on to my children
when I die? Hell NO. How about my wife? Absolutely NOT. Can I make
any decision about it? I think I can not collect it.

So as I see it under the Bush Plan, I am a lot closer to actually
owning something. Just because there are limitations on the Bush Plan,
does not mean that it is not a huge improvement over the current Social
Security. With the current Social Security, most people in their
thirties will be lucky to get back the amount they put in plus about 1
percent. Now that is a dismal return over about thirty years.

Currently all the excess Social Security funds are invested in Treasury
Bills.
I would not use any financial advisor that did not recommend some
diversity.

Dan



Too_Many_Tools wrote:

One thing ownership means is being able to do what you want with
something. But under the Bush plan, you'd be given just a small range
of approved options of how to invest "your money."

What kind of ownership is that? When money really is yours -- like
your
take-home pay -- the government has no say over how you invest it.
Gold? Pork bellies? Santa Monica real estate? Go for it.


You won't really "own" the money in your private account. Likewise,
you
can't own stars in the sky. At least the International Star Registry
is
up-front enough to admit it.

wrote:
Okay, I own my house and lot. Can I cut down all the trees on the lot?
The City says NO. Can I use it for a business? The City says NO. So
according to you I don't really own my house and lot.

Nearly everything we own has limitations on what
we can do with it. Zoning laws work both ways.
They can also keep a junkyard from moving in
next to you. You can also get involved in local
politics and help make the zoning laws.

Next. I get Social Security now. Can I pass that on to my children
when I die? Hell NO. How about my wife? Absolutely NOT. Can I make
any decision about it? I think I can not collect it.

So as I see it under the Bush Plan, I am a lot closer to actually
owning something. Just because there are limitations on the Bush Plan,
does not mean that it is not a huge improvement over the current Social
Security. With the current Social Security, most people in their
thirties will be lucky to get back the amount they put in plus about 1
percent. Now that is a dismal return over about thirty years.

Currently all the excess Social Security funds are invested in Treasury
Bills.
I would not use any financial advisor that did not recommend some
diversity.

I'm normally a conservative, but in this case
I question Bush's motivations. I think that
the banks will be the main players profiting
from privatizing SS. Look what happend when
the Texans let the savings and loan business
loose.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

One thing ownership means is being able to do what you want with
something. But under the Bush plan, you'd be given just a small range
of approved options of how to invest "your money."

What kind of ownership is that? When money really is yours -- like

your

take-home pay -- the government has no say over how you invest it.
Gold? Pork bellies? Santa Monica real estate? Go for it.


You won't really "own" the money in your private account. Likewise,

you

can't own stars in the sky. At least the International Star Registry

is

up-front enough to admit it.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:09:13 -0800, Jim Stewart
wrote:


I'm normally a conservative, but in this case
I question Bush's motivations. I think that
the banks will be the main players profiting
from privatizing SS. Look what happend when
the Texans let the savings and loan business
loose.

It wasnt just the Texans...do your studies a bit better.
Greed is universal and crosses all party lines.
Some even marry repeatedly for money.
Look at Kerry.


Gunner



" We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million
typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of
Shakespeare...Thanks to AOL and WebTv, we know this is not possible."

Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:09:13 -0800, Jim Stewart
wrote:


I'm normally a conservative, but in this case
I question Bush's motivations. I think that
the banks will be the main players profiting

from privatizing SS. Look what happend when

the Texans let the savings and loan business
loose.


It wasnt just the Texans...do your studies a bit better.
Greed is universal and crosses all party lines.
Some even marry repeatedly for money.
Look at Kerry.

I thought it was on Reagan's watch, with VP
Bush as the point man. Where am I wrong?

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:44:00 -0800, Jim Stewart
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 09:09:13 -0800, Jim Stewart
wrote:


I'm normally a conservative, but in this case
I question Bush's motivations. I think that
the banks will be the main players profiting

from privatizing SS. Look what happend when

the Texans let the savings and loan business
loose.


It wasnt just the Texans...do your studies a bit better.
Greed is universal and crosses all party lines.
Some even marry repeatedly for money.
Look at Kerry.

I thought it was on Reagan's watch, with VP
Bush as the point man. Where am I wrong?

By that criteria..Enron was Clintons fault.
Correct?

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

In article .com,
says...

...With the current Social Security, most people in their
thirties will be lucky to get back the amount they put in plus about 1
percent. Now that is a dismal return over about thirty years.

Ah but at least it's better than losing principle on the
investment.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:

In article .com,
says...



...With the current Social Security, most people in their
thirties will be lucky to get back the amount they put in plus about 1
percent. Now that is a dismal return over about thirty years.



Ah but at least it's better than losing principle on the
investment.

Jim




Would have to check, but the last I heard most people (average) used up
what was paid in within about 26 months. After that, you are living on
your kid's deposits.

Koz

On 8 Feb 2005 10:28:39 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:
In article .com,
says...
...With the current Social Security, most people in their
thirties will be lucky to get back the amount they put in plus about 1
percent. Now that is a dismal return over about thirty years.
================
Ah but at least it's better than losing principle on the
investment.
Jim
===========================
Will Rogers observed that the return *OF* your investment was
more important than the return *ON* your investment.
Enron/WorldCom/Tyco/HealthSouth/AA/Delta/TWA/Kmart/steel any
one?

I think the forecast for your daughter is that she will only lose a few
percent of her principal.


Dan

In article .com,
wrote:

Next. I get Social Security now. Can I pass that on to my children
when I die? Hell NO. How about my wife? Absolutely NOT.

Sure you can pass on your social security. Just get it automatically
deposited in your bank account in Mexico that your child has joint
ownership. Then die peacefully in Mexico and be buried anonomously, and
the SS is automatically deposited until your death certificate shows up
(never). Maybe a fewe minor bribes.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

On 8 Feb 2005 08:45:30 -0800, wrote:

Okay, I own my house and lot. Can I cut down all the trees on the lot?
The City says NO. Can I use it for a business? The City says NO. So
according to you I don't really own my house and lot.

Next. I get Social Security now. Can I pass that on to my children
when I die? Hell NO. How about my wife? Absolutely NOT. Can I make
any decision about it? I think I can not collect it.

So as I see it under the Bush Plan, I am a lot closer to actually
owning something. Just because there are limitations on the Bush Plan,
does not mean that it is not a huge improvement over the current Social
Security. With the current Social Security, most people in their
thirties will be lucky to get back the amount they put in plus about 1
percent. Now that is a dismal return over about thirty years.

Currently all the excess Social Security funds are invested in Treasury
Bills.
I would not use any financial advisor that did not recommend some
diversity.

Dan

Social Security is already a mutual fund. Instead of "investing" it in
Treasury Notes, it could be invested in an index of stocks. 500, 5000,
pick a number. That increase in earnings plus raising the taxable
ceiling would pretty much solve the problem. (In my simple way of
thinking)

Andy Asberry wrote:

On 8 Feb 2005 08:45:30 -0800, wrote:



Okay, I own my house and lot. Can I cut down all the trees on the lot?
The City says NO. Can I use it for a business? The City says NO. So
according to you I don't really own my house and lot.

Next. I get Social Security now. Can I pass that on to my children
when I die? Hell NO. How about my wife? Absolutely NOT. Can I make
any decision about it? I think I can not collect it.

So as I see it under the Bush Plan, I am a lot closer to actually
owning something. Just because there are limitations on the Bush Plan,
does not mean that it is not a huge improvement over the current Social
Security. With the current Social Security, most people in their
thirties will be lucky to get back the amount they put in plus about 1
percent. Now that is a dismal return over about thirty years.

Currently all the excess Social Security funds are invested in Treasury
Bills.
I would not use any financial advisor that did not recommend some
diversity.

Dan



Social Security is already a mutual fund. Instead of "investing" it in
Treasury Notes, it could be invested in an index of stocks. 500, 5000,
pick a number. That increase in earnings plus raising the taxable
ceiling would pretty much solve the problem. (In my simple way of
thinking)


Not meaning to be a jerk here and start a war, but is there anything
really wrong with raising the ceiling on SS taxable wages? I know that
conservatives here will condemn it as increased taxing but that's not
what I wanted to get at. The average guy pays SS on 100% of his/her
income. Geo Bush Jr pays SS on about 30% of his income from being the
Pres. A high end CEO earning about 10 mil a year pays it on about 1% of
their income.

If the standard "income" tax were arranged this way, people would revolt
because the richer you are, the lower your tax burden is.

Since this tax is actually about the social welfare of the country
(safety net), wouldn't it be wiser to have it on ALL income but at a
lower overall rate? Those who receive the most benefit pay at the same
rate as those who receive little (with regards to income)?

The argument that it would take tons of money from the econony as the
"rich" wouldn't be spending is moot here...gross SS intake would be the
same, just the distribution changed to cover all income.

Koz

In article , Koz says...

Not meaning to be a jerk here and start a war, but is there anything
really wrong with raising the ceiling on SS taxable wages?

Sure there is. Then the rich folks would be paying more of it.
Next thing, you'll suggest that SS be taken out of *all*
income, not just wages. Like investment income etc.

What are you, some kinda commie?

etc.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

There is something really wrong with raising the ceiling on SS taxable
wages. First the number of people it would affect would be pretty
small, so I doubt if it would fix the problem without some other
changes too.
But the second thing that is wrong with it is that the SS system is
already tilted way in favor of the low wage earner. I forget the exact
numbers, so go to the gov site and get the right ones. But of the
first thirty thousand dollars of earnings per year, 100 percent of the
earnings count toward figuring what you get when you start to draw.
From 30,000 per year to maybe 60,000 per year only half of that amount
counts in figuring what you get. And from $60,000 up only 15 percent
counts in figuring what you get.

Now thrown in on top of that, if your total income is below something
like $35,000 (filling jointly ), you pay no income tax on your social
security income. Above that it scales up until you pay tax on 85
percent of you social security income. So that high paid CEO already
pays a bunch of income tax, you want to collect another 12.7 percent on
top of that ( on that 10 million that would be 1.27 million ) and when
he retires he would pay income tax again on what he gets from Social
Security ( money he already paid income tax on before he sent it off
to the SS system. )
In short you want him to pay something like 1.27 million per year into
the SS system , in order to collect about 18,000 per year when he
retires, and pay about 6,000 income tax on that. Those CEO's would
fight that. And since they contribute to campaigns, that idea will
never pass.

Note that only applies to the CEO. It does not apply to the president
or any member of Congress. You surely don't think Congress is going to
vote that they have to pay into the Social Security system. Never
happen. It is a good enough system for you and me, but not for that
Congressman behind the tree.


Dan

One thing regarding SS I've never heard mentioned lately (ever?). It
is one Govt. program among many. It's been operating at a surplus as
long as I can remember. It's expected to continue at a surplus for the
next 15-30 years depending on who's guessing.

The govt in general has been operating in the red for the bulk of my
lifetime (some short exceptions). No surplus. Unimaginably huge debt.
No end in sight.

From that perspective SS looks like a pretty successful program to me.
So why is GW telling me that SS is in a catastrophic crisis but the
other CURRENT enormous deficit is no big deal? Sounds like BS to me.
I think they want to dismantle SS for idealogical/political reasons.

SS seems like a program that a LOT of Americans do rely on, if its
really going to be a safety net I think its worth fixing instead of
junking. I'd like to keep it even if we have to put more into it.

What do you guys think about that?

Eric

wrote:

There is something really wrong with raising the ceiling on SS taxable
wages. First the number of people it would affect would be pretty
small, so I doubt if it would fix the problem without some other
changes too.
But the second thing that is wrong with it is that the SS system is
already tilted way in favor of the low wage earner. I forget the exact
numbers, so go to the gov site and get the right ones. But of the
first thirty thousand dollars of earnings per year, 100 percent of the
earnings count toward figuring what you get when you start to draw.
From 30,000 per year to maybe 60,000 per year only half of that amount
counts in figuring what you get. And from $60,000 up only 15 percent
counts in figuring what you get.

Now thrown in on top of that, if your total income is below something
like $35,000 (filling jointly ), you pay no income tax on your social
security income. Above that it scales up until you pay tax on 85
percent of you social security income. So that high paid CEO already
pays a bunch of income tax, you want to collect another 12.7 percent on
top of that ( on that 10 million that would be 1.27 million ) and when
he retires he would pay income tax again on what he gets from Social
Security ( money he already paid income tax on before he sent it off
to the SS system. )
In short you want him to pay something like 1.27 million per year into
the SS system , in order to collect about 18,000 per year when he
retires, and pay about 6,000 income tax on that. Those CEO's would
fight that. And since they contribute to campaigns, that idea will
never pass.

Note that only applies to the CEO. It does not apply to the president
or any member of Congress. You surely don't think Congress is going to
vote that they have to pay into the Social Security system. Never
happen. It is a good enough system for you and me, but not for that
Congressman behind the tree.


Dan



But all this makes the false assumption that benefits from SS are
related in any way to what you've paid in.. Yes, on the lower end what
you get is partially indexed to what you've earned in your life but the
relationship is not "tight". In fact, it shouldn't be ( in a better
world) tied to what you've paid in at all. SS should act only as a
safety net to keep those no longer able to work from living in cars and
eating out of dumpsters. Until people lose the idea that SS is a
retirement account, it aint gunna happen.

As to it making only a small differrence anyway, I'll see if I can chase
any numbers. Although it might be "urban myth", I seem to remember that
when speaking of gross dollars, 5% of the people earn something like 80%
of the gross dollars in the USA.

Regarding the rest of the stuff about paying taxes on SS payments
(double taxation), it's easily cleared up if those who are supposed to
be working for US had any motivation to simplify the tax codes.
However, as you said, keeping the exceptions to the rule that are
already exceptions to another rule (ad infinitum) means that congress
gets to play more with special interest money without looking like it's
tied to favors.

Koz

Koz

snip
Interesting times ahead....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...88485db045&e=4
Whose Social Security Stash Is It?
huge snip
==============
Major/Fundamental problem is that both parties are totally
obsolete and are anachronisms in today's' society/economy. While
both parties have "solutions" unfortunately, these are not for
any current problems. The Republicans and Democrats have no more
role to play than the Whigs and Federalists, and are now simply
the 21st century version of the "Blues" and the "Greens."

The depression is over. The cold war against Russian Bolshevism
has been won. We have moved on to a post-industrial
abstract/service economy from one based on small free holder
agriculture and mass-production manufacturing.

Washington is again (still?) engaging in a "deck chair
rearranging contest" as the Titanic continues to take on water.
What is it about the immediate dangers of out-of-control federal
deficits, out-of-control current account trade deficits, and
out-of-control immigration that is so hard to understand?

As in most cases when the magic stops working, the preferred
solution is apply more potions and shout the spells louder, not
examine the situation and see what has changed.

At some point is becomes evident that it is no longer cost
effective (or even possible) to keep repairing the old car, and
the time has come to get a new one.

GmcD