How to Fix Social Security

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well I'm certainly learning a lot, and I hope others are too. I tend to lean toward the "allow people to take a portion of the tax and invest it into a private account" school of thought.

The free market is ALWAYS the best option for the whole economy and for the individuals.

The absolute WORST way, LEAST efficient and most likely to FAIL way to spend a dollar is to hand it over to the bureaucratic mess of the Government. They have no discretion when spending billions of dollars they have not earned, but you and I will be careful with every dollar we've worked for and will make a more responsible choice with it.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I'd like to see our post-Iraq defense budget slashed by hundreds of billions, which would preclude us from going into places like Iraq and Bosnia. That alone would save us trillions within a decade.

The current military budget is insanely enormous and the fundamental question is does it need to be as big as it is? A 480 billion dollar budget (pay attention to the expenditure break down on page 15)? One often hears the defence budget relative to the GDP, but what you really should be hearing about is the budget relative to federal revenue.

I don't think it's wise to lump Iraq and Bosina as they are fundamentally different in principle (war vs peach keeping) and budgetary requirement. I would even go further and say that we alone should not be shouldering the burden when it comes to peace keeping missions. The fact that we have such a huge budget gives other nations a free pass to delegate their responsibility to us. Perhaps Europe is too smart or poor?

Finally i want to make it clear that the defence budget should be dynamic. There should be a base budget and money should be allocated based on need. Currently, the default budget even when we are not in a time of war is enormous for reasons not apparent to me.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Check "Revelations". You won't be needing it

Great answer!


But, He'll be coming like a thief in the night, when we are not expecting.

Much like the Government.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by saden1

The current military budget is insanely enormous and the fundamental question is does it need to be as big as it is? A 480 billion dollar budget (pay attention to the expenditure break down on page 15)? One often hears the defence budget relative to the GDP, but what you really should be hearing about is the budget relative to federal revenue.

I don't think it's wise to lump Iraq and Bosina as they are fundamentally different in principle (war vs peach keeping) and budgetary requirement. I would even go further and say that we alone should not be shouldering the burden when it comes to peace keeping mission. The fact that we have such a huge budget gives other nations a free pass to delegate their responsibility to us. Perhaps Europe is too smart or poor?

Finally i want to make it clear that the defence budget should be dynamic. There should be a base budget and money should be allocated based on need. Currently, the default budget even when we are not in time of war is enormous for reasons not apparent to me.

It's huge now because it was starved to death in the previous Administration and needed to be rebuilt.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Stacks42

So you agree with the death tax and want to raise it? You say that you are going to buy your kids a car and pay for college. Well say you have that money set aside for them, and you die. That 100k for school you set aside will be reduced to 50k, that 25k you set aside for the jetta is now 12.5k. Where is the logic in that?

You assume incorrectly. If I happen to die prematurely I have a financial plan that insures their basic needs are taken care of foremost.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I have mixed feelings about the estate tax and this is going to sound cold, but those business owners should have better business sense. Death isn't exactly an unforeseeable event. Someone who owns a closely-held/family-owned business and who wants his or her family to continue the business should buy life insurance naming the successors and/or the business itself as beneficiaries. Life insurance isn't cheap, but it shouldn't force well-run businesses to go under.

Couldn't agree more.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I think I agree with partial privatization. My concern is with privatizing the entire thing, and then expecting people who have never taken any interest in planning for retirement to invest wisely. Partial privatization gives at least a small fallback cushion.

Well if the goverment does privatize SS it would have to be manditory that each person invest a % of their payroll each month. I would also not have a problem if the Goverment restricted how the money was invested to some point. Another words I could not take all the money and invest it into risky stocks I would have to be deversified in my portfolio.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Buster

It's huge now because it was starved to death in the previous Administration and needed to be rebuilt.

It's huge and it needs to be because under the previous administration it wasn't? I'm I understanding you correctly?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

It's huge and it needs to be because under the previous administration it wasn't? I'm I understanding you correctly?

I think what he ment was that allot of our millitary was starved for money back in the Clinton years and we have to spend more now on things that needed fixing durn the Clinton years. That argument holds some truth but with the price of the war it does not hold a bunch weight as why the budget has grown so much.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well if the goverment does privatize SS it would have to be manditory that each person invest a % of their payroll each month. I would also not have a problem if the Goverment restricted how the money was invested to some point. Another words I could not take all the money and invest it into risky stocks I would have to be deversified in my portfolio.

I agree - that would help address the concern. However, I think several people on this board would take issue with this approach, because it limits the market. However, a truly free market means we abandon people who don't come out ahead in their SS investments. Economic theory may dictate that is the most efficient outcome, but it's just not very practicable.

Originally Posted by firstdown

I think what he ment was that allot of our millitary was starved for money back in the Clinton years and we have to spend more now on things that needed fixing durn the Clinton years. That argument holds some truth but with the price of the war it does not hold a bunch weight as why the budget has grown so much.

Good post.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I think what he ment was that allot of our millitary was starved for money back in the Clinton years and we have to spend more now on things that needed fixing durn the Clinton years. That argument holds some truth but with the price of the war it does not hold a bunch weight as why the budget has grown so much.

A lot of why the defense budget has grown (aside from rebuilding) is simply because they are being utilized and needed to a greater extent. Also a lot of technology is being developed and successfully deployed in combat. It has saved lives and made our military even more efficient.

Nearly as much has been spent on research and development as has been spent on weapons procurement (production). More efficient, safer vehicles have been made, drones to use in place of live planes to spy or hit a target and also robotics to diffuse roadside bombs to save troop lives have all been used in this mission. We've lost troops, of course, but the casualty levels of the current military are FAR FAR less than in previous conflicts.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I agree - that would help address the concern. However, I think several people on this board would take issue with this approach, because it limits the market. However, a truly free market means we abandon people who don't come out ahead in their SS investments. Economic theory may dictate that is the most efficient outcome, but it's just not very practicable.


Good post.

Well anyone can go out and get a fixed investment that carrys no to little risk so if there was some sort of limit to where the money was invested it would out perform SS everytime. There is a city in Texas that opted out of SS before they passed a law making it manditory. The city collects the money and invest it for the people (something like that) and they are retiring younger and with a larger retirment than the average American.

[onlydarksets]

Opting Out in Texas: Three Counties Leave the... [Mackinac Center for Public Policy]

I have no problem with that, because it guarantees the return. However, that's not free market - it's just better management of funds (presumably there is some level of oversight, whereas now there is virtually none). Individual investors still cannot choose a riskier or safer retirement strategy.

I'd be interested to hear the Schneed/Buster take on this.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

I don't think it's wise to lump Iraq and Bosina as they are fundamentally different in principle (war vs peach keeping) and budgetary requirement. I would even go further and say that we alone should not be shouldering the burden when it comes to peace keeping missions. The fact that we have such a huge budget gives other nations a free pass to delegate their responsibility to us. Perhaps Europe is too smart or poor?

As a general matter, I don't think we should be the "world's policeman." For the righties, that means we should not intervene in conflicts (or start them) willy-nilly due to national security concerns. For the lefties, that means we should not engage in peacekeeping. I don't think it's fair to say, "We shouldn't be the world's cop" and then say we should intervene in X conflict because of national security OR humanitarian concerns. Regardless of whatever motives are behind our military interventions, they usually end up costing us money and blood and do little long-term good.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Your right and when they realise that their is an issues and now are much older and now need a large life policy the premimums can be THOUSANDS PER MONTH and allot of times it is not affordable. You also think that its ok for the goverment to put such a burden on small family busnesses? Remember the tax is based on the value of the business and not the income that the family makes off the business. So if your a small business makeing X and you have a plant with 20 workers that the goverment says is worth 5,000,000 then thats what your taxed on even though you may only make $120,000 per year.

If the business purchases life/key-man insurance on the CEO/President/Founder, it's deductible. A few thousand dollars a year is not going to tank a business worth millions. Also, the estate tax only affects individuals worth $2M (including his/her interest in any business he/she owns in part or whole). So, it's not as though the guy who runs the candy shop or down the street or his family is typically unaffected by the estate tax.