|
 Catalysis
EtherealEngineer
Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
 Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. 
#3721272 - 02/02/05 08:21 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Well, we all knew what was coming. Bush is pressing for social security reform. As a 24 year-old, i am the demographic that all the debate is centered around and i will give you my real perspective. I work in research for a university that offers an extremely generous retirement investment plan which i had to opt out of because i simply cant afford it. So what happens to people like me who will retire in 25-30 years?
I had a vicious debate with my mother who is a wealthy democrat and she believes in keeping SS as most dems do. The only problem is that she already has a private retirement account as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in real estate. When i really pressed the issue i got her to admit that she is not against the idea but she is really against it because its Bush and she cant really agree with anything he says at this point.
I am finding this fascinating because Zogby just came out saying that the dems are alienating their own groups by going against SS reform. 54% of hispanics are for it and, of course, the younger generations who work and provide for themselves are for it. He also commented that blacks are for it because they statistically have a shorter life-span. Of course, the insidious side of SS is that if you die before recieving benifits, the government gets to just take that money.
The way i see it is, the government already has welfare programs and that is not what SS was designed to be. If they are going to take our SS money (both dems and cons) and spend it, we should just say "fuck you" and tell them that we want to invest that money ourselves and make 10-20% more than we would be paid in SS benefits. Comments?
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 13 years, 21 days
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: Catalysis]
#3721509 - 02/02/05 08:52 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
when Bush mentioned Federal Employees having a private fund, does that mean that they do not have to pay into SS?
--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"
We have "reckless fiscal policies"
America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
Americans deserve better
Barack Obama
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God 
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: lonestar2004]
#3721581 - 02/02/05 09:04 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
He means to be vague.
More to come...
Until then, pay your SS for your parents, and grandparents... you may be hosed.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
 DirtMcgirt
in a pinch
Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2,213
Loc: city of angels
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: Catalysis]
#3721618 - 02/02/05 09:10 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I am finding this fascinating because Zogby just came out saying that the dems are alienating their own groups by going against SS reform. 54% of hispanics are for it and, of course, the younger generations who work and provide for themselves are for it. He also commented that blacks are for it because they statistically have a shorter life-span. Of course, the insidious side of SS is that if you die before recieving benifits, the government gets to just take that money.
source? "Blacks are for it because they statistically have a shorter life-span" seems, well, stupid. If blacks are statistically for it I doubt this is why..(think about it. Some dude thinks to himself "Well, I'm no hood and I'm from Tuscon, AZ so I'm not gettin' shot anytime soon but since blacks statistically have short life spans this SS must be a good for me since chances are I will die before I'm 65")
.....polls are worthless, See: the election results
To be honest, the idea of being forced to invest your money under gov. supervision instead of keeping it for yourself makes the burgeoning national government even larger IMO. If they allow people to just keep there money be not be eligible for Social Services I would be listening.
Quote:
The way i see it is, the government already has welfare programs and that is not what SS was designed to be.
This is an interesting point but I think these other welfare programs would be costing more so the prob ain't going away anyways. But this could also be beneficial getting it out of SS.
Quote:
them that we want to invest that money ourselves and make 10-20% more than we would be paid in SS benefits.
If your so confident in your investing skill than you should go out and make that extra %20 anyways. However, under GWB, if you lose it your losing your SS. What happens to these people? Tough shit I agree but you will end up paying for gramp's medical bills if he is dying in the streets and has to be shipped to the hospital on a regular basis because he's having seizures at the VFW 'n shit.
SO, the way I see it is this won't solve anything but just create a larger, more expensive, welfare state. It is just a way for the reps to take away the bureaucracy (dems) money and give it to the percentage of the population that already has the most money already (reps). Who is going to invest their retirement on some risky investment? Most this money will go to HUGE corporations and investment firms that will guarantee a return over the long haul. So some money that was set aside for people who don't have money goes to the people who do. This is further stratification of wealth IMO.
The best part is that when everything gets fucked up the Reps will just blame the liberals.
To be honset I was like your mom when I first heard that Bush wanted to change SS. But I'll listen and give him a chance but so far I'm very skeptical.
--------------------
"And we, inhabitants of the great coral of the Cosmos, believe the atom (which still we cannot see) to be full matter, whereas, it too, like everything else, is but an embroidery of voids in the Void, and we give the name of being, dense and even eternal, to that dance of inconsistencies, that infinite extension that is identified with absolute Nothingness and that spins from its own non-being the illusion of everything."
|
Catalysis
EtherealEngineer
Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: DirtMcgirt]
#3722080 - 02/02/05 10:12 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ource? "Blacks are for it because they statistically have a shorter life-span" seems, well, stupid. If blacks are statistically for it I doubt this is why..(think about it. Some dude thinks to himself "Well, I'm no hood and I'm from Tuscon, AZ so I'm not gettin' shot anytime soon but since blacks statistically have short life spans this SS must be a good for me since chances are I will die before I'm 65")
.....polls are worthless, See: the election results
Here is a great article about Zogby and the SS polls. I agree that polls only say so much but they do say something.
Washington Times
Quote:
This is an interesting point but I think these other welfare programs would be costing more so the prob ain't going away anyways. But this could also be beneficial getting it out of SS.
No, thats a problem. People are not supposed to be getting welfare money from SS. The system was designed for workers to pay into for retirement, it was NOT meant to be another redistribution of wealth program.
Quote:
If your so confident in your investing skill than you should go out and make that extra %20 anyways. However, under GWB, if you lose it your losing your SS. What happens to these people? Tough shit I agree but you will end up paying for gramp's medical bills if he is dying in the streets and has to be shipped to the hospital on a regular basis because he's having seizures at the VFW 'n shit.
This has nothing to do with my confidence in investing. It is common knowledge that someone with a diversified portfolio will get >10% returns from the market.
Im glad to hear you will give it a chance. We can start fixing SS now so that people will not lose their significant investments and we can gradually switch to a system where people are in control of their money. Like I said, this is really not a welfare program and it has been fucked up by both dems and reps to the point where it will not be functional in the long run. I think that fixing this now, ahead of time, is THE only way to do it and still provide SS benefits to people recieving them ATM.
Quote:
"The battle is between an overall national majority that supports partial privatization versus a highly organized set of interest groups who are prepared to rev up the intensity of opposition," Mr. Zogby said. "This thing won't win if there is not intensity on the side of supporters."
|
blacksabbathrulz
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: DirtMcgirt]
#3722581 - 02/02/05 11:38 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DirtMcgirt said:
Quote:
I am finding this fascinating because Zogby just came out saying that the dems are alienating their own groups by going against SS reform. 54% of hispanics are for it and, of course, the younger generations who work and provide for themselves are for it. He also commented that blacks are for it because they statistically have a shorter life-span. Of course, the insidious side of SS is that if you die before recieving benifits, the government gets to just take that money.
source? "Blacks are for it because they statistically have a shorter life-span" seems, well, stupid. If blacks are statistically for it I doubt this is why..(think about it. Some dude thinks to himself "Well, I'm no hood and I'm from Tuscon, AZ so I'm not gettin' shot anytime soon but since blacks statistically have short life spans this SS must be a good for me since chances are I will die before I'm 65")
.....polls are worthless, See: the election results
To be honest, the idea of being forced to invest your money under gov. supervision instead of keeping it for yourself makes the burgeoning national government even larger IMO. If they allow people to just keep there money be not be eligible for Social Services I would be listening.
Quote:
The way i see it is, the government already has welfare programs and that is not what SS was designed to be.
This is an interesting point but I think these other welfare programs would be costing more so the prob ain't going away anyways. But this could also be beneficial getting it out of SS.
Quote:
them that we want to invest that money ourselves and make 10-20% more than we would be paid in SS benefits.
If your so confident in your investing skill than you should go out and make that extra %20 anyways. However, under GWB, if you lose it your losing your SS. What happens to these people? Tough shit I agree but you will end up paying for gramp's medical bills if he is dying in the streets and has to be shipped to the hospital on a regular basis because he's having seizures at the VFW 'n shit.
SO, the way I see it is this won't solve anything but just create a larger, more expensive, welfare state. It is just a way for the reps to take away the bureaucracy (dems) money and give it to the percentage of the population that already has the most money already (reps). Who is going to invest their retirement on some risky investment? Most this money will go to HUGE corporations and investment firms that will guarantee a return over the long haul. So some money that was set aside for people who don't have money goes to the people who do. This is further stratification of wealth IMO.
The best part is that when everything gets fucked up the Reps will just blame the liberals.
To be honset I was like your mom when I first heard that Bush wanted to change SS. But I'll listen and give him a chance but so far I'm very skeptical.
What do you mean by look at the election results to see that polls are crap? Do you mean the exit polls? And if so, do you consider things such as the fact that a larger percentage of women responded to the polls than men, and that women are more likely to vote democrat, thusly giving crappy numbers?
--------------------
.
|
psilomonkey
Twisted brainwrong of a oneoff man mental
Registered: 08/08/03
Posts: 812
Loc: Airstrip One
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: Catalysis]
#3723115 - 02/03/05 01:39 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I found this to be quite an interesting analysis of Bush's SS reform proposals, in the business section of the Independent newspaper.
Business Analysis: He has taken on Iraq. Now Bush faces up to Social Security
President accused of using WMD-style scare tactics in warning of non-existent crisis
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
02 February 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/story.jsp?story=606905
It is called the "third rail" of US politics: lay even a finger on Social Security and you will suffer the political equivalent of instant electrocution. Tonight, however, in his State of the Union address, President George Bush will not merely touch that third rail, but positively embrace it. He is expected to propose the greatest changes to America's hugely popular retirement safety net in the 70 years of its existence.
Social Security has come a long way since President Franklin Roosevelt signed the system into law in August 1935, to provide "some measure of protection to the average citizen" in the depths of the Great Depression.
Despite world war, the baby boom, the inflationary 1970s oil shock and much else besides, the system has survived, essentially unchanged. Today 47 million Americans, one in six of the population, receive a monthly cheque from Social Security. For the retiree of 65, the average payment is $1,184, but for the poorest 7 million of them, Social Security is all there is.
Now Mr Bush wants to change it. The system, he claims, is on an unstoppable trajectory towards bankruptcy, as a result of the ageing of the population being experienced by the US, along with the rest of the industrial world.
Once, a dozen active workers supported each retiree. Come 2040, there will be only two, the President argues; when those entering the workforce today retire in 35 or 40 years, the money will have run out. To avoid such a catastrophe, the President is calling for Social Security to be part-privatised. New workers will be allowed to invest part (according to reports, up to one-third) of their contributions in private savings accounts.
On the campaign trail last year, Mr Bush constantly extolled the virtues of these new accounts, as "something the government can't take away ... accounts you can pass on from one generation to the next". The idea sounded especially beguiling when he pointed out that long-term returns on stock market investments invariably outperform those dreary old Treasury bonds in which Social Security currently invests its surplus income.
But if America's ascendent economic conservatives have their way, this would be the first tremor in a political earthquake - not a tinkering with the status quo, but a step towards a total overhaul of retirement security that would replace a state safety net with private resources. Small wonder Social Security reform is a central facet of the "ownership society" that Mr Bush has made the domestic goal of his second term.
But is the remedy really that simple - and above all is there really a crisis at all? Social Security is financed by a payroll tax (currently 12.4 per cent) jointly paid by companies and their employees. Barring a few years in the late 1970s and early 1980s when inflation ran riot, the system has operated at a surplus. The difference between what it receives in contributions and pays out in benefits goes into a trust fund standing today at $1.5 trillion. By the best actuarial estimates, the surplus will continue until 2018. At that point the system will pay out more than it takes in. By 2040, if current contributions and benefits remain the same, the trust fund will have been exhausted, and the system will no longer be able to meet its obligations. In Bush parlance, it will be "bankrupt".
But will it? Even after 2040, if nothing is done in the meantime, Social Security income will cover 80 per cent of scheduled payments. The very date too is hardly set in stone. Such calculations are no more than best guesses, at the mercy of unknowable variables, including life expectancy, childbirth rates and immigration patterns. The truth is, no one knows, any more than anyone knows what the budget deficit will be two years hence, let alone three decades down the line.
For many experts therefore, part-privatising Social Security is like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Yes, there is a problem, but one that can be easily dealt with by slight adjustments to the status quo: a small increase in contributions, or an increase in the ceiling on incomes (now $90,000) on which Social Security tax is levied, or a rise in the retirement age (now 65 years and six months).
For Democrats, Mr Bush is repeating the scare tactics he used over Iraq and its non-existent weapons of mass destruction, warning of a crisis when there is none, to achieve his ends - in this case the advance of a right-wing ideological agenda. Others, even more darkly, attribute the entire scheme to none other than the President's political guru Karl Rove, as a ploy to convert today's new workers into tomorrow's Republican voters.
But many fiscally conservative Republicans are also wary of Mr Bush's plans, for opposite ideological reasons of their own. For a long period, as money that would otherwise go into Social Security goes into private accounts, the system would be unable to meet payments from its own resources. To cover the shortfall, even the White House admits, the federal government would have to borrow $2 trillion - at a time when the country is already running huge budget and external deficits. Contrary to what Mr Bush claims, the switchover to part-privatisation would thus increase the burden on future generations.
But for the President, the wiggle room is very small. Raising contributions would amount to a tax increase which is anathema to this administration. The only other available compromise is a cut in benefits; in one form or another, that will almost certainly be the outcome if Mr Bush has his way.
But will he? Not only are most Democrats implacably opposed to a measure that will require a measure of bipartisan support to pass. The AARP, the powerful retirees' lobby group, is against part-privatisation; so too, no less ominously, is Bill Thomas, the Republican chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. Others say the real problem is not Social Security but Medicare, the federal programme for the elderly and disabled that faces a medium-term deficit eclipsing that of Social Security. In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
In the end, the battle will be won by perceptions. Tonight, Mr Bush will make the case that Social Security must be fixed, and soon. If enough Americans are frightened into believing him, he will have his way. But he would do well to consider the Clinton experience. In 1993, the former president launched a plan to provide universal health care in the US. No idea could be more laudable - yet the Clinton plan foundered as opponents successfully framed it as a hideous new bureaucracy, an expansion of government that amounted to backdoor socialism.
Already there are signs Mr Bush is retreating. Last week, he spoke for the first time of Social Security as a "problem", not as a crisis. And history could be about to repeat itself. The last time Social Security got into trouble, in the early 1980s, Ronald Reagan set up a commission, headed by a certain prominent economist named Alan Greenspan.
The commission's recommendations, a mix of payroll tax increases and benefit reductions, did the trick then. Could a repeat role await a certain Federal Reserve chairman when he finally becomes a retiree early next year?
|
JesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
|
|
http://www.socialsecurity.org/quickfacts/
_Quick Fact Archive_
_1. Social Security will begin running a deficit by 2018._
Source: 2003 Social Security Board of Trustees Report, Table VI.F2, p.168
_2. The average worker can expect a rate-of-return of less than 2% on his or her Social Security taxes._
Source: Actuarial Note 144, Social Security Administration Office of the Chief Actuary, Table 4
_3. The Social Security payroll tax rate has grown from just 2 percent in 1949 to 12.4 percent today._
Source: Social Security Administration
_4. Social Security faces an unfunded liability of more than $26 trillion._
Source: 2003 Social Security Board of Trustees Report. For explanation, see "Social Security Deficit Increases by Trillions," Cato Daily Commentary.
_5. "Saving" Social Security without individual accounts could require a 50% increase in Social Security taxes or a 27% cut in benefits._
Source: 2003 Social Security Board of Trustees Report
_6. The Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v. Nestor that there is no legal right to Social Security benefits._
Source: Flemming V. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 610?11 (1960)
_7. Social Security taxes have been raised more than 40 times since the program began._
Source: See legislation affecting Social Security and Medicare programs available on the Social Security Administration website.
_8. The maximum original Social Security tax was just $60. Today it is $11,000._
Source: Social Security Administration
_9. In 1950, there were 16 workers paying Social Security taxes for every retired person receiving benefits. Today there are 3.3. By 2030, there will be only 2_.
Source: 2003 Social Security Board of Trustees Report, Table IV.B2, p. 51
_10. 46 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, including 32 million retirees, 7 million survivors, and 7 million disabled workers._
Source: 2003 Social Security Board of Trustees Report, p. 2
_11. Social Security pays more than $450 billion in benefits each year. If nothing is done, by 2060, the combination of Social Security and Medicare will account for more than 71 percent of the federal budget._
Source: Statement of Thomas R. Saving (PDF), Public Trustee of the Social Security Board of Trustees before the Senate Special Committee on Aging, July 29, 2003.
_12. 18-to-34 year olds are more likely to believe in the existence of UFOs than in the future existence of Social Security._
Source: ?Social Security: The Credibility Gap,? Third Millennium survey, conducted Sept. 1994.
_13. According to Gallup, reforming Social Security is a top priority for 33% of investors._
Source: The Gallup Organization, ?Investor Optimism Increases for the Fourth Consecutive Month,? report released January 28, 2004.
_14. Nearly 80% of Americans pay more in Social Security taxes than they do in federal income tax._
_15. Every two-year election cycle that we wait to reform Social Security costs an additional $320 billion._
_16. The full retirement age today is 65 years and four months. It rises by two months every year, gradually increasing to age 67 for people born after 1959._
Source: Social Security Administration
_17. By 2030, there will be 70 million Americans of retirement age--twice as many as today._
Source: Social Security Administration
_18. The average monthly retirement benefit in 2003 was $879.70._
Source: Social Security Administration
--------------------
Tastes just like chicken
|
California
A E S T H E T I C S A T A N
Registered: 12/27/04
Posts: 72,118
Loc: H A U N T E D H O U S E
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: psilomonkey]
#3724475 - 02/03/05 11:56 AM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Bush is right. SS needs major reform. It was great for a while, and it does help those that created it, but it will be broke for their grandchildren.
SS needs to evolve now.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: California]
#3725251 - 02/03/05 03:39 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
So, you want to get it on. There is one analysis I want to see. Hell, I'll do it myself, except I can't find the info. I need 2 things. Average soc sec contribution year by year for someone born in 1940. I.e, how much did the average 20 yr old contribute in 1960, 21 yr old in 61 , etc. By average, I mean median. Half made more, half made less. I also want the same for someone at the 25th percentile. These people retire this year. I believe the current benefits are $1,400 a month. Whatever. I'll take that info, calculate the rate of return on a DJI index fund and tell you how much cash they will have. My bet is that both groups will draw more money off the interest than they get now. I'll also point out that the interest income lasts forever, as long as the principal is untouched, and that the principal will remain intact, if they wish, to pass along to their children. Premature death will not result in being shortchanged by the system and endless life will not deplete the principal. Don't bother with the inflation jive either. Higher inflation leads to higher interest paid and higher DJI prices. Soc Sec needs to just go away. I say this and I'm almost 50. For any youngster to say it should be saved is just fucking dumb.
--------------------
|
California
A E S T H E T I C S A T A N
Registered: 12/27/04
Posts: 72,118
Loc: H A U N T E D H O U S E
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: zappaisgod]
#3725284 - 02/03/05 03:48 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Soc Sec needs to just go away. I say this and I'm almost 50. For any youngster to say it should be saved is just fucking dumb.
Right on both accounts, and coming from someone in that particular age group nicely spoken. 
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: zappaisgod]
#3725340 - 02/03/05 04:00 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
For any youngster to say it should be saved is just fucking dumb.
Truer words never spoken. Social security is fucked. There are too many old people who are drawing or will soon be drawing benefits, and too few young people to pay the bills.
The trust fund is empty; past social security taxes have already been spent, and this spending has been hidden by accounting tricks.
Private accounts won't save it, and will do nothing for the immediate problems it faces.
We need to drop the charade that people my age will get anything from it, and have a plan for phasing out benefits over a number of years, so that people who are depending on social security for retirement aren't totally screwed.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: phi1618]
#3725390 - 02/03/05 04:13 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
My appeal for info still stands. You guys are all far more savvy than I am about searching the net. Find me the info I need and I will be greatly appreciative. Who knows, you may get 5 shrooms out of it  and love.
--------------------
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
SS: Information and data [Re: zappaisgod]
#3725872 - 02/03/05 05:35 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Ok... this is going to be a long post.
Basic Information
The SS OASDI (Old-Age, survivors, and disability insurance) program is funded by taxes levied on employers and the employed. The tax is a flat percentage of income, up to a maximum level. Benefits are payed to disabled or retired workers based on the number of years worked and the amount of money made during those years. Generally, payments are relatively more generous to those who work for a short period of time and don't make that much money. People who work 5 years and are badly injured benefit; those who work their entire lives and make plenty of money (and pay lots of taxes) generally put in more than they get out.
Taxes
Over time, the percentage of income and the income level up to which earnings are taxed has increased. The figures below are for OASDI, and don't include Medicare taxes.
Total of employer and employee contributions to OASDI, % by year, from http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html:
37-49 2
50-53 3
54-56 4
57-58 4.5
59-59 5
60-61 6
62-62 6.25
63-65 7.25
66-66 7.7
67-67 7.8
69-70 8.4
71-72 9.2
73-73 9.7
74-77 9.9
78-78 10.1
79-80 10.16
81-81 10.7
82-83 10.8
84-84 11.1 (some accounting shenanigans went on from 84-87, resulting in lower taxes for the self-employed, and indirect contributions to the ss budget from the general budget by way of tax rebates)
85-87 11.4
88-89 12.12
90--- 12.4
Max income taxed, from http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html#Series :
1937-50 3,000
1951-54 3,600
1955-58 4,200
1959-65 4,800
1966-67 6,600
1968-71 7,800
1972 9,000
1973 10,800
1974 13,200
1975 14,100
1976 15,300
1977 16,500
1978 17,700
1979 22,900
1980 25,900
1981 29,700
1982 32,400
1983 35,700
1984 37,800
1985 39,600
1986 42,000
1987 43,800
1988 45,000
1989 48,000
1990 51,300
1991 53,400
1992 55,500
1993 57,600
1994 60,600
1995 61,200
1996 62,700
1997 65,400
1998 68,400
1999 72,600
2000 76,200
2001 80,400
2002 84,900
2003 87,000
2004 87,900
2005 90,000
Income
I could find age data for 15-24 yods only back to 1974, but for older groups back to 1947, so this data starts in 1965, for a 25 yo. All data is in current dollars; so, data for 1965 is in 1965 dollars and data for 1980 is in 1980 dollars.
year.. age.. median income, from http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p08.html
65 25-34 6,007
66 25-34 6,507
67 25-34 6,799
68 25-34 7,331
69 25-34 7,974
70 25-34 8,256
71 25-34 8,562
72 25-34 9,218
73 25-34 10,088
74 25-34 10,483
75 35-44 13,331
76 35-44 14,326
77 35-44 15,604
78 35-44 16,572
79 35-44 18,344
80 35-44 20,037
81 35-44 21,117
82 35-44 21,649
83 35-44 22,440
84 35-44 24,566
85 45-54 25,845
86 45-54 27,756
87 45-54 28,487
88 45-54 29,578
89 45-54 30,962
90 45-54 31,007
91 45-54 31,779
92 45-54 32,181
93 45-54 33,154
94 45-54 34,933
95 55-64 28,980
96 55-64 29,526
97 55-64 31,157
98 55-64 32,776
99 55-64 33,648
00 55-64 34,414
01 55-64 35,637
Benefits
Here is an explanation of the benefits forumula:
http://research.aarp.org/econ/fs59r_ssbenefit.html
I didn't read it.
Here's a benefit calculator you can use to determine the amount of ss retirement benefits that our hypothetical median wage earner above will draw:
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/AnypiaApplet.html
In any case, remember that ss also provides disability insurance, so it should come as no surprise that it is a second best retirement plan. However, I'm interested in just how bad a retirement plan it is. I've supplied the needed data; somebody else do the calculation. 
Edited by phi1618 (02/03/05 05:36 PM)
|
Catalysis
EtherealEngineer
Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: zappaisgod]
#3725930 - 02/03/05 05:47 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I think i found exactly what you are looking for but the go way in-depth in their analysis. I don't have time to read it but maybe you can go through it and find the facts you are looking for. I think they've already done the analysis you are talking about and its probably somewhere in the paper.
This paper is a statistical analysis on the SS reform debate.
Pension Research Counsel
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: Catalysis]
#3726128 - 02/03/05 06:21 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Personally, I don't think that there's any SS "crisis". It's just more smoke and mirrors and the playing of off of people's fears which this administration seems to be so good at. (remember Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction"?) It's just giving Bush's buddies in the financial community the chance to get their hands on all that lovely SS money, which I might add, is a trillion-plus dollars in surplus at the moment.
Although you might get a better rate of return on the stock market, you may not. What a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that it is entirely possible to lose a lot of money in the stock market as well. I give you the stock market "bust" that happened a few years ago as proof of this. Bonds are quite a bit safer, but their rate of returns are lower as well.
Another objection I have is the huge set-up costs for this proposed change. Can we really afford another trillion or so added to the current deficit?
I also object to the notion that those who are too elderly or disabled will lose the "safety net" that SS provides. "Hey, they contribute nothing to society, so let's let 'em die" seems to be the sentiment of those who support this so-called "reform". It seems to me to be motivated purely out of selfishness and I find quite heartless.
Lastly, when the day is done, I think they only people who will benefit from these reforms will be those in the financial community, not the common wage-earning man.....
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: Le_Canard]
#3726163 - 02/03/05 06:26 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
SS has been in trouble for a long time. Bush didn't just make up this problem.
--------------------
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: Silversoul]
#3726208 - 02/03/05 06:33 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Anyone have an opinion on this lovely piece from moveonpac?
http://cdn.moveon.org/content/pdfs/SocialSecurity_WMD.pdf
--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.
bang bang
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: Silversoul]
#3726274 - 02/03/05 06:41 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Well, I guess it all comes down to how one defines "trouble". You cannot deny the fact that the SS funds will remain in surplus for the next four decades though. Yes, SS does have some problems, but is it really a crisis? Sorry, I just don't trust the Bush administration's word on anything, anymore. And it's not so much because I'm so liberal (I'm really slightly "left-of center"), but that this bunch in Washington have been so duplicitous in the past. Frankly, if they said the sun was shining, I'd still look out the window to check....
|
phi1618
old hand
Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 11 months
|
Re: Lets get it on: Bush and SS reform. [Re: Le_Canard]
#3726321 - 02/03/05 06:48 PM (19 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It's just giving Bush's buddies in the financial community the chance to get their hands on all that lovely SS money, which I might add, is a trillion-plus dollars in surplus at the moment.
Social security is in crisis, but the Bush plan will do nothing to fix it.
Social security pulls in more money than it spends, so what's the crisis? Simply put, the federal government borrows the social security trust fund surplus without including it in the official debt figures.
Since the money borrowed from social security by the general fund is money the federal gov't owes itself, it isn't accounted for in the usual way. So Social security revenues have been invested in treasury bonds, a usually low return but very safe investment. However, since these bonds are sold by the gov't to itself, the gov't isn't under any obligation to pay them, and they aren't included in offical debt figures. So, in this case, the social security trust fund is invested in the lowest return, highest risk investment imaginable - kinda like giving an unsecured $1000 dollar loan at prime rate to a crackhead you just met.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag 
Kratom Capsules for Sale 
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale 
Kratom Powder For Sale
Edit 
Reply 
ekomstop
Ellis Dee
Phred
Ancalagon
1 2 all )
Evolving
usefulidiot