Daddy Security
Social Security, arguably the most popular social program in United States history, began way back in 1935 as a signature part of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. It was the end result of years of competing ideas about what a program of social insurance would look like for the United States – a country that had rapidly changed in the modern industrial era.
The idea was that Social Security would address the permanent problem of economic security for the elderly by creating a work-related, contributory system. Workers would provide for their own future benefits through taxes paid while employed. According to the Social Security Administration, it was an “alternative both to reliance on welfare and to radical changes in our capitalist system. In the context of its time, it can be seen as a moderately conservative, yet activist, response to the challenges of the Depression.”
Over the last thirty years, in anticipation of the needs of the Baby Boomer generation (hello, Daddies!), Social Security has taken in much more than it has paid out. Now that’s changing as the Boom generation retires.
How do you feel about Social Security? Do you think it’s in trouble, like some conservatives would have you believe, or do you think it’s in fine shape, as progressives usually point out? Hunters, do you worry there will be no benefits for you when you get older?
Most politicians agree that some changes have to be made to the program for it to last. Former President Bush wanted to invest Social Security money in the stock market, as opposed to its current investment in bonds. Do you think that would have been, or is, a good idea? As we well know, markets don’t always go up. How about a cap on contributions? Right now, only the first $106,800 of income is subject to Social Security tax. Should those earning higher incomes pay more?
Should “rich” retirees get lower benefits? “Means testing” indicates that if your income were already high enough your Social Security benefit would be reduced. Is this fair to people who have been paying into the system all their working lives?
Finally, what about raising the retirement age? For me, it’s 66 years and 2 months for full benefits, though I, like everyone else, can start taking benefits at 62. People are living much longer than they did in 1935. However, there are many considerations other than life expectancy that figure into whether or not someone should continue working past a certain age.
I’d like to ask the other Daddies (Hunters too!) how they plan to fund their older years. For me, it’s likely a mixture of a small pension from a company I worked for (if it’s still around), IRA (unless the market crashes again), and Social Security (keeping my fingers crossed). I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to (or want to) “retire” in the traditional sense of the word, but I don’t want to have to work till the day I drop dead, either.
Comments
FDR was one of our greatest presidents. Government programs deserve more support. Just vote Democrat. Social Security is solvent according to AARP -- trust them. Your contributions are safe and waiting for you. Let future politicians worry about long-term issues. If younger people have to pay more taxes, hey, that's part of being an American. Just vote Democrat. NOT.
Social Security would be fine if the government would stop paying out money to people who do not deserve it or who did not pay into it. One point to this, paying benifits to these young girls marrying older men who are old enough to be their Grandfather over th age of 65 and having children with these old men knowing that they will get SSI money for said child, the more childern they have with Grandpa the more money they get.
STOP giving out my hard earned money to FREELOADERS!!
Bad idea to scrap Social Security and have workers fund their own retirement, as republicans suggest. This is just a scheme to get suckers to put trillions into the stock market, where it will get eaten up by risky (gambling) investments and swindlers (like Bernie Madoff) and Wall Street exorbitant salaries and bonuses (30 billion last year). Millions have already lost their homes and retirement funds in the recession, why would anyone want to risk this again? The funds are there, and some simple fixes like taxing all income for SS, and raising the full retirement age to 70 gradually, will keep the fund solvent for many decades. As to "freeloaders" don't know what you mean--people have to earn SS by working and paying into the system, and if their spouses get a benefit when they die, that's hardly freeloading--hoping same-sex couples are soon eligible for this benefit too. No evidence for younger women marrying much older men for their SS benefits--hardly a fortune or motivation to get married--some younger women like older men, just as hunters like Daddies. Children will not get "SSI" unless they are disabled.
A very timely topic for me...I expect to take early "retirement" within the next 5 or 6 month. Mostly because the field of work I spent most of my life in has fizzled out and, argue as you might, age-ism is alive and well in the hiring of new employees. Altho I expected I would work until 66 so I could draw the maximum amount of Social Security I could, I don't feel bad about retiring early...I've always been a responsible worker, but was have never lived for my career. I have plenty of interests to keep me from being bored.
You raised many questions and I don't plan on addressing them all. I just want to say that I don't like that our goverment (blame any individual or political party you want) chose to rob Peter to pay Paul, taking money from the Social Security System. Altho there is a plan in place to pay it back, it shouldn't have been done, IMHO. 2% interest is a paltry return, even if the money does get put back.
Also, if word of mouth information is to be believed, I understand there is a movement under way to take funds from Social Security to fund some sort of program for illegal aliens? Does anyone have the facts on that? I am not anti-Democrat, but I heard that members of that party are the ones instigating this.
The following may be straying off topic, but it's still about our country's financial woes. Call me radical...call me cold-hearted or a bad excuse for a Christian, but I fully believe it's time that the U.S. makes a statement to this effect: "sorry World, we're basically bankrupt....we can no longer go deeper in debt by throwing millions/billions of dollars at all the problems that beset you - natural catastrophes, political upheaval, etc. We will give you our sympathy, but we regret that we haven't the monetary resources to help you." And maybe we should stop all immigration? Regarding illegal immigrants...maybe we should impose the same punishment upon them that their country would impose upon our citizens if caught illegally immigrating into their country? Have our own punishment level, but impose whichever punishment is more severe. Make it known that we're going to do so...give any who are here now 30 days to get out...then let the chips fall where they will. We are SO worried about being politically correct that we're tying our own hands. Why do we have American citizens freezing to death because they're living hand-to-mouth on the streets...but we're THROWING money at programs for illegal immigrants? Toughen up, America? Sure, I've probably oversimplified the issue and the possible solutions. I'm certainly not an expert in politics, finance, law or whatever else one should be, to be making such decisions. Nor am I the most articulate person to be pushing these points. But wholly crap, Batman, something needs to change!
You need to get your facts straight and find someone who isn't quite such an easy target. Illegal aliens (redundant expression) aren't at all the problem. Quite the contrary, many work here and pay taxes, pay in on SS that they will likely never collect on. They take jobs that we are too "good" for. The bigger problem is US-born citizens who have figured out ways to milk the system. THEY do nothing but collect, never pitch in. Generations of welfare recipients -- of all races.
But let's look at things a bit more honestly. US petroleum companies screw us, play games with the prices and claim it's all Supply and Demand. Well, there hasn't been any real shortage of supply in decades, and even that was artificially created. Same thing with China. I can buy a charger for my iPod (car AND home plus cable) on eBay. It's sent out of Hong Kong, and arrives under 2 weeks later, for the total price of $2.89 including shipping. Meanwhile, if I go to Best Buy for it, the same item will be $19.99. The Chinese aren't screwing us. We're getting screwed by our own U.S. corporations.
It's all too easy to take shots at foreigners. But they didn't make our woes. WE did. We wanted cheap fiberboard furniture instead of paying a craftsman for real wood. We wanted plastic everything, but didn't want our own air and water fouled. And we wanted it cheap. Enter Japan, then Korea, then China. What happens when the Chinese economy rises? Malaysia, Africa? Sooner or later we'll run out of places to exploit. Then again, we may run out of money for our Service Industry country to buy with first.
What WE need is to start producing goods again, to have a GNP to speak of. Then there will be ample prosperity for everyone. So put the wagging finger away. Or better yet, put it to good use by penning a plan to increase this country's GNP.
social security was enacted as a protection from being on the welfare rolls. It has succeeded for the most part. The funding is still viable despice what republicans will attest to...I believe it is viable till around 2035 or so according to many accountants..however the scare is that it wont be in the long run..which i agree with.
I dont believe that investing out tax paid money in the stock market or bond market is a good idea..look at how current events are making the market fluctuate. Especially the oil market right now...Investing in the market in general IS a game dont forget...if you have the money to gamble with..and that means DISCRESSIONARY capital then fine but it should only be done on a voluntary basis. Funds for social security should not be in a game based market.
As for Wall St. in general..they are the ones who put middle class citizens in this mess to begin with. and They got bailed out...we didnt!
As an aside GM made billions this year in profits so I guess Obama was right..investing in America car companys did work..it kept 80,000 american jobs HERE
Lets pray that social security stays stable and that the Republicans who squandered all our money in 2 UNPAID for wars dont stay in power in congress..Then i think alot of our headaches will abate...I do agree that raising the age for benefits could help alleviate the risk of Social Security from going under...but SENSIBLE and THOUGHTFUL negotiations should prevail in all our decisions here in this country..............thanks for listening Bob
There really wasn't much of a middle class until after WWII. There were the rich, of which there were few, and there were the poor, of which there were many. The rich took from the poor to become richer, because they had the power to do so. It was serendipidy more than anything else that built up the middle class, mainly because the US was the main world wide expoter of goods until the early 70's. Once the world recovered and the global economy kicked in, the true buying power of the dollar hit a decline than no local "fixes" could change. Thus, we entered "stagflation", mainly due to increased unemployment because the trade ratio changed. Reagan convinced us it was ok to go into national and personal debt and "spend" your way to prosperity---it worked for awhile, but the bills always come due. Subsequent administrations and congresses played the shuffle game and spewed rhetoric, while the only real change was the hastened decay of the middle class, because they were the ones who were easy enough to screw, but had some money to be worth screwing. Social Security was robbed by the government, and will be insolvent in the near future, but was never changed and updated to reflect the changing world---it wouldn't have been viable for the long runwitout changes anyway. What is the answer IMHO? Frankly, given the state of the world economy, given the mess we have put ourselves in, the only way out I see is a complete reboot. All debts declared null and void, all benefits declared null and void. Social chaos and suffering would ensue, and it will not happen until absolutely forced by reality. As I have said many times, given the historical, political, social and economic reality, my only hope is I won't live long enough to see the worst of the fall. Given the events of the past few years, though, even that hope is waning....
The math is pretty straightforward. Baby Boomers have been earning it, while a far smaller population has been spending it. Now that's about to reverse, and there won't be enough money there to pay the bills.
If we'd followed GWB's notions, SS would have been wiped out a few years back. Risking it in stock markets is stupid on the best of days. If it's to increase, the work it is put to must be entirely safe.
As to raising the age of retirement, that's foolish as well. Imagine having to get a job at 68 years of age. Good luck getting ANY sort of gainful employment at 68 or 69 when they know you'll be retiring at 70. And then there are the health issues, which do tend to increase as we age. The person who was reasonable able-bodied at 63 or 65 could be far more fragile at 68 or 69.
I don't expect the government to cover my backside. I've been self-employed most of my life and not paid into SS. I'm okay with that. Hopefully, I'll act wisely and have my dwelling paid for, perhaps have another investment or two providing an income by the time I'm 60-something.
As to the question about caps and the wealthy, call me a socialist pig, but if you're making that much, you should be pitching in, and shouldn't be receiving anything more than Medicare. The $500 a month isn't going to make or break you, but it could mean a heating bill or groceries for 10 other people who DO need the money. This program is social. It should be humane. And yes, it's socialist. I like the socialist roads we enjoy rather well too.
My thoughts. Your own reality may vary.
At my age, yearning for retirement, but not financially able to make the move, this topic is of great concern to me. I'm really dismayed that the left as well as the right is calling for draconian changes. According to the last statement that I received from the SSA I have paid $116,056 into social security and $34,957 to Medicare with my employers having paid the same amounts on my behalf, making a total contribution of $302,026, a pretty tidy sum! I think the system if fine and that there should be not cuts, no raising of the retirement age, and no further extension of the salary cap. The problem as other have pointed out is that this fund has been robbed to pay for other programs for which it was never intended. It's time to pay back the social security trust fund! The way to do this is simple...raise the marginal tax rate of the super-rich! I am a CPA and worked for years helping the rich get richer and it gets disgusting! One last point regarding the pejorative use by politicians and the media of the word "entitlement." It is outrageous! Yes, social security and medicare are "entitlement programs." Taxpayers pay into these funds and we are entitled to something in return.
While certain institutional and government solutions are good as a last resort there is that more important level of brotherhood type stuff that can start to fade when people start to be totally government oriented and then people ignore anything outside of their virtual world of paperwork and then settling arguments is even done through lawyers and all such cold approach's to things where actual caring and concern is passed off to a process that could care less as people become numbers and categories and labels. Government process needs to be just a backdrop for what matters most in terms of a sense of brotherhood and community involvement where there are many people who do things to affect communities who have dinners in undisclosed locations and who will never be up for election. Such people can be friends for life if we combine some human stuff with the static paperwork that piles up till no one has any idea what all words are contained in all the file cabinets and databases. Maintaining ones health for the sake of prolonged existence is only as good as the other stuff in life that is the real reason for the smile and sense of bonding for sure.
About Age Appropriate
Age Appropriate is an interactive blog for Daddies and the men, hunters, and bears that love them. Covering everything from sex and dating to pop culture and nightlife, Age Appropriate keeps the daddy dialogue open and honest. Think of us as a daily supplement to help keep your hunt as enjoyable, entertaining, and enticing as the catch itself.
Recent Blog Posts
For blog issues, contact us at editor@daddyhunt.com.
Archive
- September 2008 (2)
- November 2008 (23)
- December 2008 (26)
- January 2009 (14)
- February 2009 (5)
- March 2009 (3)
- April 2009 (3)
- May 2009 (3)
- June 2009 (3)
- July 2009 (2)
- August 2009 (2)
- September 2009 (1)
- October 2009 (3)
- November 2009 (3)
- December 2009 (5)
- January 2010 (3)
- February 2010 (2)
- March 2010 (6)
- April 2010 (7)
- May 2010 (5)
- June 2010 (9)
- July 2010 (11)
- August 2010 (15)
- September 2010 (21)
- October 2010 (13)
- November 2010 (16)
- December 2010 (18)
- January 2011 (11)
- February 2011 (10)
- March 2011 (15)
- April 2011 (18)
- May 2011 (10)
- June 2011 (19)
- July 2011 (16)
- August 2011 (15)
- September 2011 (13)
- October 2011 (11)
- November 2011 (9)
- December 2011 (11)
- January 2012 (10)
- February 2012 (15)
- March 2012 (11)
- April 2012 (9)
- May 2012 (5)
It is not just conservatives who think social security is in trouble. The numbers speak for themselves. When Social Security was introduced the average life expectancy was 67, with retirement at 65. It was assumed that people would only collect for 2 years. Now the average life expectancy has risen to 76, so the average person will collect for 11 years. The other thing that no one anticipated is that Congress would raid the trust fund and spend all the money. The Social Security Administration has filing cabinets full of IOU's from Congress but no cash. Congress pays a measely 2% interest on the money. Beginning in 2017, Social Security will begin paying out more than it takes in, and Congress will have to kick in the difference. By 2037, Congress will have, in effect, paid back everything it borrowed plus interest, and at that point the system will be broke. So is social security in trouble? Not yet, but it will be in a few years if nothing is done.
I believe that social security as we know it should be scrappeed for everyone under the age of 40, and the people encouraged to pay into their own 401k or IRA plans. Then the government cannot get their hands on the money and spend it on things are politically expedient to them. Both parties are guilty of this practice, lest anyone accuse me of being a republican. In the meantime, I thnik the individual can get a far better return on investment than the paltry 2% Congress pays, assuming they will have the cash to even pay it.
Unfortunately, Congress nor the Administration has the balls to take on this issue, or Medicare which is an even bigger problem, so it will likely take another crisis before anything is done. By that point, the options will be few, and the American people, especially those who relyed on Social Seccurity for their retirement will suffer the most. You can be assured that the retired congressmen and senators will get their pensions !