One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Another try
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
Aug 14, 2019 23:54:01   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
JFlorio wrote:
Social Security is a giant ponzi scheme Tom. It wasn't meant to be someones entire retirement. Unfortunately it is for a great deal of Americans. It will fail without major changes. It's just math. When SS was first implemented the avg. age people lived to age 62. That age has increased to 82. There are also less people putting in until recently. SS benefits were due to be cut in 2033 but now because of full employment that has been pushed to 2034. There are ideas to shore it up such as increase the income limit. Presently that limit is at $132,900. No SS is taken out of payroll taxes over that amount at this time.
Here's one idea, (mine).
My idea is to give workers a choice. Presently S.S.'s formula is based off your 35 highest earning years. Anyone with 35 years in or within ten years of 35 and planning on working until they reach 35 will be grandfathered in. Others should have the choice of rolling over what they have contributed into an IRA (contributory limits would be raised) or staying with S.S.. With special provisions on when they can get to it. They could then invest as a formula permits with deductions automatic from their check or if self employed a percentage mandated to go into you IRA. The simplest formula I know of is based off 100. If your age is 55 you should have 55% or more of your retirement savings in "safe" can't lose principle products and 45% in more speculative type investments. As you get older the formula changes and investments become more conservative. This type of "laddering" will definitely out perform the S.S. payment received today. Oh well my 2 cents for what it's worth.
Social Security is a giant ponzi scheme Tom. It wa... (show quote)
All that IRA stuf is fine for those who can afford to get into a plan. What about the millions who work for minimum wage and have not a dime to spare for their entire working life?

Reply
Aug 15, 2019 00:00:26   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
All that IRA stuf is fine for those who can afford to get into a plan. What about the millions who work for minimum wage and have not a dime to spare for their entire working life?


Those same people are having 6.2% taken out now Tom. I’m just saying let them put that directly from their check into something that will make them much more.

Reply
Aug 17, 2019 22:31:38   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
JFlorio wrote:
Those same people are having 6.2% taken out now Tom. I’m just saying let them put that directly from their check into something that will make them much more.


So social security would be an option? You could invest it yourself or put it into a social security account.

Reply
 
 
Aug 17, 2019 23:47:53   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
So social security would be an option? You could invest it yourself or put it into a social security account.


Yes. Unfortunately Tom the Govt. would have to have rules in place to protect people from themselves. If you chose the investment route their would be specific rules a planned administer had to follow. Such as the older the worker gets the more conservative the investments become. I would use the old 100 rule. If you are forty for ie. 60 % of your investments would be aggressive and 40% would be conservative. As you age the percentages change. Aggressive lessens and conservative increases. There are investments out there that guarantee principal and still have a reasonable rate of return. I would still allow people to take retirement income at 62. Their choice. Let’s say your earnings were $500,000 after all those years of work and you retire at 62. The rules would set your draw at 4.5% payout for life. In this case $22,500/yr. For every year you delay the life time payout goes up .5% so at 67 ( the full retirement age for many workers now, depending on the year they were born) the payout would be 7%. or in case above $35,000/year. I would make 7% the highest % you could draw.. When the worker retires all investments go into principal guaranteed products. Remember in this system as you draw you still make interest. Guaranteeing a payment for life and never having to dip into another workers “bucket” as we do now; so to speak. I’ve given this idea a lot of thought over the years and have taken parts of other countries plans I like. Panama, Japan, Netherlands, to name a few. This would still be based on 6.2% being taken from your paycheck as they do now. The difference being choice.

Reply
Aug 18, 2019 13:09:22   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
JFlorio wrote:
Yes. Unfortunately Tom the Govt. would have to have rules in place to protect people from themselves. If you chose the investment route their would be specific rules a planned administer had to follow. Such as the older the worker gets the more conservative the investments become. I would use the old 100 rule. If you are forty for ie. 60 % of your investments would be aggressive and 40% would be conservative. As you age the percentages change. Aggressive lessens and conservative increases. There are investments out there that guarantee principal and still have a reasonable rate of return. I would still allow people to take retirement income at 62. Their choice. Let’s say your earnings were $500,000 after all those years of work and you retire at 62. The rules would set your draw at 4.5% payout for life. In this case $22,500/yr. For every year you delay the life time payout goes up .5% so at 67 ( the full retirement age for many workers now, depending on the year they were born) the payout would be 7%. or in case above $35,000/year. I would make 7% the highest % you could draw.. When the worker retires all investments go into principal guaranteed products. Remember in this system as you draw you still make interest. Guaranteeing a payment for life and never having to dip into another workers “bucket” as we do now; so to speak. I’ve given this idea a lot of thought over the years and have taken parts of other countries plans I like. Panama, Japan, Netherlands, to name a few. This would still be based on 6.2% being taken from your paycheck as they do now. The difference being choice.
Yes. Unfortunately Tom the Govt. would have to hav... (show quote)


Sounds ok to me as long as it is fail safe. Don't want a big crash like in 2008 to wipe it all away and leave seniors with no income at all.

Reply
Aug 18, 2019 13:12:58   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Sounds ok to me as long as it is fail safe. Don't want a big crash like in 2008 to wipe it all away and leave seniors with no income at all.


If structured properly couldn't happen. It's complicated but so is Social Security.

Reply
Aug 18, 2019 16:43:57   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
JFlorio wrote:
If structured properly couldn't happen. It's complicated but so is Social Security.


I think it could be done.. If Structured with safeguards and guaranteed dividends --Why not let it be an option.

Reply
 
 
Aug 18, 2019 17:43:27   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
I think it could be done.. If Structured with safeguards and guaranteed dividends --Why not let it be an option.


I agree.

Reply
Aug 19, 2019 00:43:41   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
JFlorio wrote:
I agree.


How could it be implemented?

Reply
Aug 19, 2019 09:14:59   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
How could it be implemented?


Through congress, means it probably couldn't. they can't tie their own shoes. Have to be done through legislation.

Reply
Aug 19, 2019 20:40:47   #
Navigator
 
JFlorio wrote:
Through congress, means it probably couldn't. they can't tie their own shoes. Have to be done through legislation.


Which would involve congress sez I snidely.

Reply
 
 
Aug 19, 2019 20:46:47   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Navigator wrote:
Which would involve congress sez I snidely.


Exactly. Many of the same rules we have for personal retirement accounts now could be imitated.

Reply
Aug 20, 2019 00:40:18   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
JFlorio wrote:
Exactly. Many of the same rules we have for personal retirement accounts now could be imitated.


Sounds good sign me on. What else can we fix?

Reply
Aug 20, 2019 10:11:24   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Sounds good sign me on. What else can we fix?


I'm afraid fixing Washington would require term limits. Only gonna happen with a Constitutional Convention.

Reply
Aug 21, 2019 00:33:17   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
JFlorio wrote:
I'm afraid fixing Washington would require term limits. Only gonna happen with a Constitutional Convention.


I am with you on the term limits---political "dynasties" have made politicians rich and left us with the dirty end of the stick.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.