Jump to content

Soc. sec. defined benefits vs defined contribution


Flying_Mollusk
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here is a good read which discusses democratic opposition to Bush's social security plan and what its really about. It also does a good job of putting tricksters like Brit Hume and others in their place when they attempt to quote Clinton's past statments as somehow being an endorsement of Bush's current plan.

 

 

Nick Kristof has a column today in the Times in which he argues that Democrats are wrong to flatly oppose President Bush on Social Security privatization, both substantively and perhaps also politically.

 

Democrats themselves, he argues, were serious in pressing the issue of reform in the 1990s. And they were right then and wrong now because even if the president has exaggerated the problems facing Social Security, it does face very real problems.

 

...

 

 

Kristof's column, actually, provides an opportunity to review and expand upon the essentials of this debate. So let's have at it.

 

President Clinton tried to devote the final two years of his presidency to "saving" Social Security from the threat of future insolvency -- a threat which appeared substantially closer then than it does today, less than a decade later. His plan was to shore up the nation's fiscal standing so that it would be better able to cope with the pressures created on Social Security by the baby-boom generation in the early and middle decades of this present century.

 

Let's stop and understand what that means. He wanted to take steps now so that Social Security could continue to exist for future generations as a defined benefit social insurance and old age pension system. President Bush, on the other hand, is trying to phase that system out and replace it with a defined contribution system of 401k-style private accounts.

 

These are not two spins upon or flavors of putting Social Security on a solid footing. The difference is a category difference, as clear as it ever is between preserving something and trying to bring it to an end. The difference is fundamental. And anybody who does not understand this either doesn't grasp the policies involved, has been fooled, or is at work trying to fool someone else.

 

Let's grab this by the root.

 

Is it fair to say that President Bush is trying to "phase out" Social Security? Well, what is Social Security? For seventy years it has existed as a defined benefit social insurance program. What does that mean? It is a social program in which everyone who works during their lifetime gets a guaranteed benefit in retirement. It's not meant to be a sole means of support. Those who pay in more get more back; and those who pay in less a bit less. But everyone who works is guaranteed a benefit which provides at least a modicum of comfort and dignity in old age. Have the benefit structures changed over time? Yes. But they change for everyone together, not by the vagaries of chance or individual fortune.

 

Social Security envisions a retirement in which recipients, hopefully, have three sources of income: Social Security, some employer-based pension and personal savings. The latter two, in varying degrees depend on how hard you work, how much you make, how wisely you invest and the vagaries of chance. Social Security, as a defined benefit program, is meant to be the one leg of the stool which is a flat guarantee.

 

At root, with all the statistics and flimflam over words, President Bush wants to change that. He wants to phase out Social Security in favor of private investment accounts. In the latter case, there is no guarantee at all, just as there is no guarantee in private nesting, which of course is just as is should be. He wants to get rid of the defined benefit program and change it to a defined contribution program -- not partially, but totally. Indeed, he said this in his recent press conference quite clearly. But few of the reporters present latched on to the statement or its significance. Social Security, he said, is "now in a precarious position. And the question is whether or not our society has got the will necessary to adjust from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan. And I believe the will will be there. (emphasis added)."

 

There's no 'partial' here. He's talking about phasing out one and replacing it with the other. Reporters and commentators don't seem to get that this is a category difference, though this is something that is widely understood in the pension policy community.

 

Let's look at the words they use.

 

Take this article from the trade publication Business Insurance from August 30th of last year. The headline reads: "More employers freezing, phasing out DB [i.e., defined benefit] pensions; Companies closing defined benefit plans may experience unwanted side effects." And the lede reads: "Faced with increasing pension funding liabilities and an unfriendly regulatory environment, more employers are phasing out their traditional defined benefit plans and opting to beef up their defined contribution offerings." Or take an example from the mass circulation dailies in which the same issue is discussed. This from the Miami Herald back on January 22nd, 1995: "If you work for a big corporation, you may still qualify for a defined benefit plan. But don't count on it. Many employers that offer both defined benefit plans and 401(k)s are phasing out their pension plans and beefing up their 401(k)s."

 

As those who follow these matters well know, going from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan is seldom a good thing for recipients. Under the president's plan benefits would be far lower and they would not be guaranteed in any way. Whether you think this is a good thing or not, the change is a fundamental one.

 

A number of wavering Republicans are now saying that they will only sign on to the president's plan if it still maintains the guaranteed benefit. But that's silly. Not only is it obvious that his plan doesn't do that; as we've noted above, he's already said himself that it doesn't do that.

 

It's easy to get lost in verbiage about defined this and defined that and mazes of actuarial figures. The key, though, is the difference between an unsecured system and a secured one. That's why it's called Social Security and why phase-out is really the only candid way to describe what the president wants.

 

Privatizers have tried to confuse this issue in a number of ways -- most recently by referencing President Clinton's willingness to consider investing a portion of the Social Security Trust Fund in private securities rather than in Treasury bonds. In his 1999 State of the Union address Clinton said "I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state government pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years."

 

Whether investing a part of the Trust Fund in private securities is a good idea or not is a complicated question. In retrospect, at least in the short run, doing so in 1999 would have been a very bad idea since, as we now know, the stock market was at the height of an historic bubble. Tricksters like Brit Hume on Fox and various easily-bamboozled hosts on CNN are now saying that what Clinton was proposing is what Bush is proposing today. But anyone who says this is either being dishonest or is simply ignorant.

 

What Clinton was proposing was simply a different way for the Trust Fund to invest its money -- perhaps a good one or a bad one. But it would still be a defined benefit program. The risk of investing would be borne by the government, not the individual. Making a higher rate of return would make it easier for the Social Security program to pay guaranteed benefits down the road. But for the individual the benefits would remain the same regardless. As Clinton noted, many state defined benefit plans invest their money in this way. Under the Bush plan, it's different. Individuals invest their own small sums in the market and they're on their own. No guarantee.

 

So, to sum up this lengthy discussion. Our current retirement system envisions people going into retirement with three sources of income: the guaranteed benefit from Social Security, private savings and hopefully, though less and less frequently, an employer-based pension. Democrats have no beef with private investing, though privatizes try to imply otherwise. They want families to save more for retirement than they are today. The issue is no more complicated than a simple one of diversification -- the need for Social Security and private savings, both of which complement each other.

 

Anyone who looks honestly at the numbers realizes that under private accounts the average beneficiary would almost certainly get less money in retirement than they will now under the current Social Security system. But the key is that the president wants to phase out the defined benefit Social Security system and replace it with 401ks, the defined-contribution approach. Or, in other words, to get rid of Social Security and have people make up the shortfall with private savings.

 

Kristof says that the only "powerful objection" to phase-out is that at the moment we can't easily handle the transition costs. So it would seem that the entire issue of defined benefit versus defined contribution plans, Social Security versus 401ks, is lost on him.

 

Another problem is Kristoff's claim that there are a "variety of ways to organize retirement accounts so the poor are better off."

 

Social Security is not welfare. The issue is not principally one of "the poor." For coming up on a century, Social Security has been the sheet-anchor of the American middle class. It is about preventing people who have been middle class during their working lives from becoming poor when they retire. (In a later post we'll discuss how Social Security honors the value of work.) In so doing the guaranteed benefit of Social Security ramifies through the economy and through the generations in ways that the current debate has scarcely begun to explore.

 

For instance, Social Security has been instrumental in preventing parents from the necessity of deciding whether to support aging parents or spend on education for their children -- a devil's choice which was always a key route by which families were yanked out of the middle class, since investment in education has long been key to preserving middle class status.

 

In any case, we can go into more detail on all these points. And I haven't even touched on the survivors' and disability insurance portions of Social Security, which the 401k model wholly ignores. But let me return to my central point.

 

Getting rid of Social Security and preserving it are not two versions of the same endeavor, even if the distinction is intentionally obscured by the rhetoric of 'reform.' They are opposite objectives. Since President Bush is now trying to do the former nothing is more obvious or logical than that the Democrats are opposing him root and branch since they want to do the latter.

 

This is all another way of saying that the Democrats do have an alternative on the table: preserving Social Security rather than phasing it out. (Once again, let me say that in a later post I'll discuss why our values are only honored by a system like Social Security.) Democrats already have and will continue to propose adjustments to the system to handle potential shortfalls which are decades in the future. But this debate -- for anyone who understands it, indeed even the White House now concedes the point -- is not about solvency. And the fact that Kristoff does not grasp that point is not their problem, though his confusing the two issues certainly complicates preserving the program.

 

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/...1_30.php#004700

Link to comment
Share on other sites


FDR wanted it to morph into individual accounts ultimately.

 

Was the system's primary architect wrong?

680103[/snapback]

You do know that when Bush ran for state senate in Texas in the 1970's, he believed that the Social Security Administration would be bankrupt by the late 1980's. Since that never happened, he's set a new date. However, even the administration admits that the program will still pay 70 percent benefits by the 2070's.

 

I just really don't see how personal accounts will save the system. The biggest irony of all is that Bush wants to help future workers by reforming the Social Security system, yet he has run up the National Debt more than any Democrat possibly could in four years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FDR wanted it to morph into individual accounts ultimately.

 

Was the system's primary architect wrong?

680103[/snapback]

You do know that when Bush ran for state senate in Texas in the 1970's, he believed that the Social Security Administration would be bankrupt by the late 1980's. Since that never happened, he's set a new date. However, even the administration admits that the program will still pay 70 percent benefits by the 2070's.

 

I just really don't see how personal accounts will save the system. The biggest irony of all is that Bush wants to help future workers by reforming the Social Security system, yet he has run up the National Debt more than any Democrat possibly could in four years.

680157[/snapback]

Yep, and even Clinton's projections were ten years short. Typical smokescreen approach from the administration. I guess its easier to say the naive public supports you when you don't tell them what you are actually doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I'd rather have a rebate on my social security ... if they give me half of my social security taxes back for the intent purpose of investing into a Roth IRA (obviously they would have to tax the rebated portion, but whatever........) then the return I get from that would be greater than any social security benefit I could ever hope to receive.

 

As for the context of the article, I'm very familiar with defined contribution vs defined benefit plans ... I write insurance for pension administration and definitely feel that defined contribution is by far a better risk, in part because the chances of paying out a defined contribution over an extended period of time is slim

 

My main question would be then, if social security is a defined benefit plan, when I retire in 40+ years can I sue the government if benefits are only at 70% the rate that they are today?! In the business world it happens all the time.

 

I don't think the Bush plan is the answer, I have a lot of questions on it. However, status quo is not the answer either. Also, when dealing with time value of money the longer you wait, the less you gain and the more complex the problem becomes.

 

Instead of getting all up in arms about if the timeline is correct and side issues I'd love to see the democrats take the Bush plan for a start of negotiations.

 

A simple "We don't agree with all your numbers, but we do feel irregardless of timeline that Social Security in it's current form isn't the best option. Instead of your plan we would like to see something that looks more like ......................."

 

Unfortunately, all I can see is bickering for the next 4 years with no ground being made and the social security problem compounding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I'd rather have a rebate on my social security ... if they give me half of my social security taxes back for the intent purpose of investing into a Roth IRA (obviously they would have to tax the rebated portion, but whatever........) then the return I get from that would be greater than any social security benefit I could ever hope to receive.

 

As for the context of the article, I'm very familiar with defined contribution vs defined benefit plans ... I write insurance for pension administration and definitely feel that defined contribution is by far a better risk, in part because the chances of paying out a defined contribution over an extended period of time is slim

 

My main question would be then, if social security is a defined benefit plan, when I retire in 40+ years can I sue the government if benefits are only at 70% the rate that they are today?!? In the business world it happens all the time.

 

I don't think the Bush plan is the answer, I have a lot of questions on it.? However, status quo is not the answer either.? Also, when dealing with time value of money the longer you wait, the less you gain and the more complex the problem becomes.

 

Instead of getting all up in arms about if the timeline is correct and side issues I'd love to see the democrats take the Bush plan for a start of negotiations.

 

A simple "We don't agree with all your numbers, but we do feel irregardless of timeline that Social Security in it's current form isn't the best option.? Instead of your plan we would like to see something that looks more like ......................."

 

Unfortunately, all I can see is bickering for the next 4 years with no ground being made and the social security problem compounding

680226[/snapback]

 

Thats just it. The foundation of social security is as a defined benefit plan and fixing that is fine with dems even if there is a problem. But Bush seems to be using the shortfall as an excuse to change the whole system when that isnt necessary and its to undue a solid government program.

 

And Bush certainly hasnt evidenced an intent to play fair with the other side. He undercuts NCLB after taking all the credit in the world for it being one example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is a defined benefit plan the best system?! ... either way it's acting as a pension type plan ... you can change the kind of pension type plan that you run, without changing the fact that it's still a pension type plan

 

since everyone is caught up in the defined benefit aspect I have two questions. The first being what is my defined benefit? The second is what is my recourse when that benefit cannot be upheld?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason Furman from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities does a better job explaining :

 

 

 

In a briefing today, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan contended that a story on the Administration?s Social Security plan printed in today?s Washington Post was inaccurate.[1]? McClellan said:? ?The story is wrong.? Individuals get to keep everything they set aside in personal accounts, plus the increased rate of return they?ll realize on their investment.?

 

Mr. McClellan, however, omitted the key detail of the President?s proposal:? Any person who sets up a private account would get an automatic reduction in their Social Security benefit.? This automatic reduction in their Social Security benefit would offset much or all of the value of their account.? The fundamental issue is not where the benefit reduction comes from but what happens to the net benefit at retirement.

 

A senior Administration official, giving a background briefing on February 2, was more forthright on this point:

 

??in return for the opportunity to get the benefits from the personal account, the person foregoes a certain amount of benefits from the traditional system.? Now, the way that election is structured, the person comes out ahead if their personal account exceeds a 3 percent real rate of return, which is the rate of return that the trust fund bonds receive.? So, basically, the net effect on an individual's benefits would be zero if his personal account earned a 3 percent real rate of return.? To the extent that his personal account gets a higher rate of return, his net benefit would increase as a consequence of making that decision.? [emphasis added]

 

The senior Administration official made it clear that individuals do not get to keep everything they have deposited in their accounts plus the earnings on the account.? He made it clear that in net, they get to keep only the earnings on the account, if any, that exceed a rate of return three percent above the inflation rate.? Everything else would effectively have to be repaid, with the repayment accomplished through a reduction in Social Security benefits.

 

What the Plan Would Mean For Social Security Beneficiaries?

 

A more detailed CBPP analysis describes the mechanics of the accounts.[2]? To give one example, consider a worker who turns 21 in 2011 and will earn average wages over his or her career.? If the worker wants to participate in the private accounts, he or she would have to agree to an $11,000 annual reduction in his or her annual Social Security benefits in retirement ? that is, to a reduction in the individual?s Social Security benefits of approximately 50 percent.[3]? Over the course of the worker?s retirement (assuming he or she had normal live expectancy), this benefit reduction would total $152,000.? (All numbers cited here are in inflation-adjusted 2004 dollars.)

 

If the worker earned a 3 percent real rate of return on his or her private account ? which is the risk-adjusted rate that the Congressional Budget Office assumes in its analysis of Social Security plans that include private accounts ? the worker would end up with an average account balance of exactly $152,000.? It would take this entire $152,000 account, turned into an inflation-indexed annuity, to make up for the worker?s $11,000 annual reduction in Social Security benefits.? As a fact sheet that the White House issued today acknowledged:? ?If the account earns a 3% real rate of return ? the worker would be right back where he started . . .? (see footnote 3).

 

Even if the worker?s account did better than this, the worker still would need to use the majority of the account just to make up for this automatic reduction in her Social Security benefit.

 

It should be noted that these Social Security benefit reductions would not contribute to the solvency of the Social Security system; they would, as the senior White House official acknowledged in the February 2 briefing, be neutral with regard to Social Security?s finances, neither making them better nor worse.? And if the President has ruled out revenue options as a way to help restore Social Security?s solvency, then solvency would have to be restored entirely through other cuts in Social Security benefits that would be in addition to the automatic 50 percent reduction in Social Security benefits imposed on people who chose the private accounts.

 

 

http://www.cbpp.org/2-3-05socsec3.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is why democrats are warily eyeing Bush IMO:

 

Why expose workers to that much risk? Ideology. "Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state," declares Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute. "If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state."

 

By the welfare state, Mr. Moore means Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - social insurance programs whose purpose, above all, is to protect Americans against the extreme economic insecurity that prevailed before the New Deal. The hard right has never forgiven F.D.R. (and later L.B.J.) for his efforts to reduce that insecurity, and now that the right is running Washington, it's trying to turn the clock back to 1932.

 

Medicaid is also in the cross hairs. And if Mr. Bush can take down Social Security, Medicare will be next.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/opinion/...html?oref=login

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is why democrats are warily eyeing Bush:

 

Why expose workers to that much risk? Ideology. "Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state," declares Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute. "If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state."

 

By the welfare state, Mr. Moore means Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - social insurance programs whose purpose, above all, is to protect Americans against the extreme economic insecurity that prevailed before the New Deal. The hard right has never forgiven F.D.R. (and later L.B.J.) for his efforts to reduce that insecurity, and now that the right is running Washington, it's trying to turn the clock back to 1932.

 

Medicaid is also in the cross hairs. And if Mr. Bush can take down Social Security, Medicare will be next.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/opinion/...html?oref=login

680285[/snapback]

 

 

Thats a very bias article. But as a fiscal conservative this is the first thing wholeheartedly agree with bush on. Social security needs to be reformed and hopefully thos eother programs will follow. If that network that FDR created, whcih has taken away so much of our freedoms, can be limited then all that is needed is for a later president to work hard at cutting military spending, and the US will finally be the way its supposed to be. A truly free country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is why democrats are warily eyeing Bush:

 

Why expose workers to that much risk? Ideology. "Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state," declares Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute. "If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state."

 

By the welfare state, Mr. Moore means Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - social insurance programs whose purpose, above all, is to protect Americans against the extreme economic insecurity that prevailed before the New Deal. The hard right has never forgiven F.D.R. (and later L.B.J.) for his efforts to reduce that insecurity, and now that the right is running Washington, it's trying to turn the clock back to 1932.

 

Medicaid is also in the cross hairs. And if Mr. Bush can take down Social Security, Medicare will be next.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/opinion/...html?oref=login

680285[/snapback]

 

 

Thats a very bias article. But as a fiscal conservative this is the first thing wholeheartedly agree with bush on. Social security needs to be reformed and hopefully thos eother programs will follow. If that network that FDR created, whcih has taken away so much of our freedoms, can be limited then all that is needed is for a later president to work hard at cutting military spending, and the US will finally be the way its supposed to be. A truly free country.

680290[/snapback]

 

Of course Bush will never say he wants these programs gone which is my point. He pretends to "reform" while undoing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sometimes undoing is the best way to fix something

 

I would have no problem in theory going from a defined benefit to a defined contribution plan, as long as I had some input on where my money was going

 

If I could invest $3,000 every year I'm working into a safe investment, like a Roth, then I would have more benefit at time of retirement that Social Security could afford to me

 

there is enough money to create a good plan ... however, operating on the old premises just doesn't work right now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like most Americans arent with Bush on this one:

 

(CNN) -- Americans think the wealthy should help bolster Social Security, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday suggests.

 

More than two-thirds of 1,010 adults contacted from Friday to Sunday said it would be a good idea to limit benefits for wealthier retirees and for higher income workers to pay Social Security taxes on all their wages.

 

Currently, the cap on wages taxed for Social Security is set at $90,000.

 

Other options to change Social Security fell far behind -- 40 percent of respondents said reducing benefits for early retirement is a good idea; 37 percent said increasing the tax for all workers would be a good idea; 35 percent said the government should increase the age at which people could receive full benefits; and 29 percent said reducing benefits for people under 55 was acceptable.

 

The margin of error for the poll was plus or minus three percentage points.

 

About 55 percent of respondents thought Bush's proposal that would allow wage earners to invest some of their Social Security taxes in private investment accounts in the future is a "bad idea" -- the same percentage as a month ago before the president began his campaign for the plan.

 

Forty percent said it was a good idea in both polls.

 

But 64 percent said that the system will be bankrupt by 2042 if "major changes" aren't made.

 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Social Security Administration and the Office of Management and Budget, the system won't be penniless, but it will be unable to pay all the benefits due by about midcentury.

 

Their conservative actuarial reports estimate income from the payroll taxes would cover between 70 percent and 80 percent of the necessary funds.

 

Those responding to the poll indicated they have more confidence in their own investment skills than in those of most Americans.

 

Thirty-seven percent said they thought most Americans would get lower benefits if allowed to invest through personal accounts (30 percent said the benefits would be higher).

 

About 40 percent said they believed they personally would reap higher benefits, while 27 percent thought they would do worse with personal accounts.

 

Of the respondents, 757 were not retired -- and 53 percent of them said they had done some planning for retirement "but not enough."

 

Four percent of those responding to the poll said they thought there was no problem with Social Security.

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/08/...rity/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it seems like the poll you referenced is saying a lot of things that many on this board are saying

 

that bush's plan isn't necesary the best route

 

"55 percent of respondents thought Bush's proposal that would allow wage earners to invest some of their Social Security taxes in private investment accounts in the future is a "bad idea""

 

Social Security does have some fiscal concerns

 

"64 percent said that the system will be bankrupt by 2042 if "major changes" aren't made."

 

It also seems that people tend to be more concerned about people making bad investments as opposed to being dead set against the concept of having an individual account

 

The main thing that the general population thinks would be good is to tax higher wage earners more while offering them less coverage .... pretty much the mentality of let me get mine by taking yours because you don't really need it anyway. This obviously plays well to the masses, because they don't have to make an additional sacrifice while getting a benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is why democrats are warily eyeing Bush:

 

Why expose workers to that much risk? Ideology. "Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state," declares Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute. "If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state."

 

By the welfare state, Mr. Moore means Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - social insurance programs whose purpose, above all, is to protect Americans against the extreme economic insecurity that prevailed before the New Deal. The hard right has never forgiven F.D.R. (and later L.B.J.) for his efforts to reduce that insecurity, and now that the right is running Washington, it's trying to turn the clock back to 1932.

 

Medicaid is also in the cross hairs. And if Mr. Bush can take down Social Security, Medicare will be next.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/opinion/...html?oref=login

680285[/snapback]

 

 

Thats a very bias article. But as a fiscal conservative this is the first thing wholeheartedly agree with bush on. Social security needs to be reformed and hopefully thos eother programs will follow. If that network that FDR created, whcih has taken away so much of our freedoms, can be limited then all that is needed is for a later president to work hard at cutting military spending, and the US will finally be the way its supposed to be. A truly free country.

680290[/snapback]

 

Of course Bush will never say he wants these programs gone which is my point. He pretends to "reform" while undoing them.

680292[/snapback]

 

 

The problem is that the general public will mever fly for undoing anything. Several reasons, theres groups that support ever single entitlement or program, then theres people who dont understand how things work and prefer things to stay as are. So too many people dotn want things undone, so lets reform them instead. I think that social security should not exist for everyone, i think people who dont need it should not receive it. If a large # of people do not receive the benefit then the total sum that needs to be contributed to it will be reduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree Tonyi. It's not a popular move politically at the moment, but it'll cause the least panic.

 

It's still early, but based on what I've seen & read so far I don't think Bush has a chance in hell of getting this done. At least as its being proposed. Gonna be tough to convince people to change to price from wage-indexing too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raising the retirement age has always been in the works. If anyone thinks that Social Security isnt in trouble they are fooled ! The baby boomer generation will bankrupt the system. The amount of workers compared to the amount of non workers collecting S.S. will eventually kill the system. Its not that many more years before that generation is completly taking from the system.

 

Admitting that there needs to be a change is the first step.

 

Finding out what the best process to fix it is another.

 

Nobody knows exatly what Bush is preparing and until then I dont know how I feel.

 

Change needs to be made, politics aside, they need to come up with a fix, before I get shafted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raising the retirement age has always been in the works. If anyone thinks that Social Security isnt in trouble they are fooled ! The baby boomer generation will bankrupt the system. The amount of workers compared to the amount of non workers collecting S.S. will eventually kill the system. Its not that many more years before that generation is completly taking from the system.

 

Admitting that there needs to be a change is the first step.

 

Finding out what the best process to fix it is another.

 

Nobody knows exatly what Bush is preparing and until then I dont know how I feel.

 

Change needs to be made, politics aside, they need to come up with a fix, before I get shafted.

680849[/snapback]

You hear of the social security trust fund?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...