retail-worker.com        It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.
Log in Register FAQ Forum Index
Social Security Reform
   Forum Index -> Politics Schmolitics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CCCs


Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 5:18 am    Post subject: Social Security Reform  
The third rail of politics is now in play, as the President has made it a huge priority to reform Social Security as we know it. As a person who is many years away from my entitlement, I think it is a good thing to attack this problem now, rather than waiting until it is too late. I personally am an advocate of privatizing a portion of my investment in social security. What about you?
Back to top
Nofsdad


Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 6:06 am    Post subject:  
Isn't it a little bit early to be making those decisions? There hasn't even been any detailed plan proposed, let alone any rational debate of the factors involved..

As someone who, according to the president, won't be affected by the changes proposed, I probably don't have a lot to say. I am concerned that Mr. Bush is getting some rather lucid questions from members his own party, including people of an age to be directly affected.

All he's done is Propose a bare bones plan that needs a ton of fleshing out and scrutiny from all angles before it can even be considered rationally. I'll know what I think when I've seen all sides of the issue.
Back to top
centralnj1


Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 232
Location: Greenville, North Carolina
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:06 pm    Post subject:  
Bush's plan is nonsense! He is telling of a few benefits while hiding the details. Wanting to take his plan is like considering a new drug for your illness and not considering the bad side effects.

First, your regular benefits will be reduced by 40-50%, then you have to pay back the 3% in interest that SoSec would have made on the bonds if you didn't have the account, so all that you make is that which is over the 3% you pay back.

So if your account earns 4%, less the 3% that gets paid back to SoSec, you have earned a wopping 1% while taking a 40-50% reduction in benefits. You may loose money, plus when your account is drained, you could end up in poverty. Exactly what the program was designed to combat in the first place!
Back to top
Nofsdad


Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 4:42 pm    Post subject:  
Thanks Central. I had just read that analysis along with some other questions and criticisms, many by people young enough to be his target audience and from his own party in many cases.

Based on THAT analysis, the major difference I can see is that the Wall Street parasites will have more of your money to play around with while you're waiting to get your puny 1% return and pay back the "loan" you get from the government. This is obviously important to any group that makes money without producing anything in return.

I'm sure more info will be coming from both sides and hopefully a rational decision will be made in the end but people who jump on a bandwagon before they've even put the wheels on it are often apt to fall off before the parade's over.
Back to top
USA#1


Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1964
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:40 pm    Post subject:  
Of course, members of Congress DO NOT PAY Social Security themselves. They have a system similar to a lot of companies to where they have an account, tax free. Something like a golden parachute of sorts. THAT'S WHY they don't have worry about it. Same goes for the President in that he comes from money. Doh! Naughty!
Back to top
Nofsdad


Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 11:59 pm    Post subject:  
USA#1 wrote:
Of course, members of Congress DO NOT PAY Social Security themselves. They have a system similar to a lot of companies to where they have an account, tax free. Something like a golden parachute of sorts. THAT'S WHY they don't have worry about it. Same goes for the President in that he comes from money. Doh! Naughty!


Unfortunately, that's exactly right. Generally speaking, he people in charge now, government or private sector (they seem to be interchangeable these days) are from a generation that basically never had to live from paycheck to paycheck let alone worry about where their next check was coming from. They make their money off the labors of the masses and as long as there are masses to to do the work, there will be leeches to suck up the spoils.
Back to top
CCCs


Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:11 am    Post subject:  
Quote:
then you have to pay back the 3% in interest that SoSec would have made on the bonds if you didn't have the account, so all that you make is that which is over the 3% you pay back.

So if your account earns 4%, less the 3% that gets paid back to SoSec, you have earned a wopping 1% while taking a 40-50% reduction in benefits. You may loose money, plus when your account is drained, you could end up in poverty. Exactly what the program was designed to combat in the first place
!

Hey central,

Where did you come up with this formula?
Back to top
CCCs


Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:19 am    Post subject:  
Would a plan like this be so bad?

Should we create private accounts?

Quote:
Or take a low-income worker who earns today's equivalent of $20,000 yearly. Investing in a Ryan-Sununu account over his entire career, with half in stocks and half in bonds, he would reach retirement with an accumulated personal account fund of about $270,000 in today's dollars. That could pay him about 80 percent more than Social Security promises but cannot pay


Ryan/Sununu Plan

Quote:
The official score of the Ryan-Sununu plan by the chief actuary of Social Security shows that large personal accounts equal to about half the total Social Security payroll tax would eventually shift all Social Security liabilities for retirement benefits to the accounts, where workers would get much better benefits than promised by Social Security today. This would eliminate all Social Security financing problems permanently.

The president should propose large personal accounts with the goal of eventually phasing in the full Ryan-Sununu plan and forget about any cuts in future promised Social Security benefits. This would ultimately solve all the problems of Social Security and, in the process, provide enormous gains for working people, as well as the capital markets
.

_________________________________________________________________
Back to top
Nofsdad


Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:57 am    Post subject:  
Here we go with the URL game again. I thought the purpose of the original post was to find out what others thought, not to try to sell the plan proposed by the administration. Finding articles by financial pundits who agree with you ain't no big deal. Those that disagree can find just as many to support their own positions.

I didn't even HAVE a hard position on this particular subject when I got up this morning but I can do the URL thingy and I think I have one now.

ArizonaRepublic
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0206valdez0206.html

Here's one from the Cornell University Sun, published by young people who will definitely be affected by the outcome of this hard sell who have enough sense to look at all sides of the question.
http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/03/4201b4b25df04

Quote:
Don't believe any of this. There is no crisis. According to the Congressional Budget Office, whose director was a Bush senior economist, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until at least 2052. After then it will still be able to pay at least three quarters of scheduled benefits. Because benefits rise in line with wages, which themselves rise faster than inflation, that three quarters will be higher than current Social Security benefits. Our generation will still be paid more than current retirees.

Quote:
But even that scenario is pessimistic. It's based on the assumption that the U.S. economy will grow at a rate of 2.0 percent, far slower than the historical rate of 3.4 percent. This low growth rate assumes that productivity will rise approximately 1 percent less than it has for the last fifty years and that the number of immigrants to this country will plummet to less than half its current level. If the economy continues to grow at more reasonable levels, the problem goes away entirely -- there is no Social Security shortfall.

Quote:
What if the economy performs badly? Privatization advocates say that the stock market offers higher returns and that these can be used to offset any shortfall. They compare a stock market rate of return of seven percent with the much lower returns on Social Security. The truth is that the accounts will return something much lower, about 2.7 percent, when rates of return are honestly calculated and management fees are factored in. This number is similar to Social Security's rate of return, but with much higher risk. And if the economy does as badly as privatization advocates suggest, then private accounts will return even less than that because the stock market will do worse. The Social Security Bulletin, the research journal of the Social Security administration, concurs: "Calculations of the median voter's return from "investing" in Social Security suggest that for a majority of voters the U.S. Social Security system provides higher ex-post, or actual, returns than alternative assets".

Quote:
Even if the economy does as poorly as some suggest, the current system would still be able to pay full benefits. The CBO estimates that the shortfall after 2052 will be 0.4 percent of GDP per year, or approximately one fifth the long term costs of Bush's tax cuts. It would be fairly easy to raise this small amount of money through a combination of modest benefit cuts and tax increases. So, to repeat and to emphasize this point, I would like to say again: THERE IS NO SOCIAL SECURITY CRISIS.

Quote:
Bush's plan, if passed, will dramatically increase poverty among the elderly by slashing Social Security benefits to the bone, with eventual cuts in retirement benefits by an average of 46 percent. Only part of this cut will be compensated by personal stock market accounts, and that portion will be highly risky. A few rough years in the stock market or poor investment decisions could leave many destitute. It also increases risk to retirees in other ways. Social Security keeps paying benefits for as long as a retiree lives and it adjusts benefits for inflation, while private accounts would not. Insuring against these problems would further reduce the size of private accounts. If Bush's plan passes, our generation will have less to retire on and will face much higher risk.

Quote:
The transition to a privatized program would also be hideously expensive, costing $2.2 trillion over the next ten years and $6.6 trillion over the next twenty years. The presence of such enormous and persistent deficits would damage the U.S. economy and destabilize global financial markets.

Quote:
If privatization is such a bad idea, why would anyone want to do it? One reason is pure greed. Social Security is highly efficient, spending less than 1% of the money it takes in on administration. Wall Street firms managing large numbers of relatively small accounts would take a far higher proportion.

Quote:
Private accounts could lead to investment firm profits of over $1 trillion over the next 75 years.


And there you go. I think that the last two items tell you exactly why the folks running the big Wall Street financial companies and the big corporations want to sell this thing so badly. I believe the main reason will be so that they will be able to get their hands on the money of millions of people who, for whatever reasons have been unable or unwilling to pump any part of the money they need for basic living into those companies. They haven't been able to get their hands in your pockets yet so now they want to make your future dependent on their being able to do so.
Back to top
GoodFella


Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 2205
Location: A little bit sideways!
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:55 am    Post subject:  
Why I don't want a dime of my SS money in the Stock Market.

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/estockmktcrash.htm

Quote:
Throughout the 1920s a long boom took stock prices to peaks never before seen. From 1920 to 1929 stocks more than quadrupled in value. Many investors became convinced that stocks were a sure thing and borrowed heavily to invest more money in the market.

But in 1929, the bubble burst and stocks started down an even more precipitous cliff. In 1932 and 1933, they hit bottom, down about 80% from their highs in the late 1920s. This had sharp effects on the economy. Demand for goods declined because people felt poor because of their losses in the stock market. New investment could not be financed through the sale of stock, because no one would buy the new stock.



Was this not the reason FDR came up with this whole program so this would never happen again?

Quote:
Impact on Social Security

The election of 1932 was a pivotal event in the development of Social Security. Had President Hoover been reelected, it is virtually certain there would not have been a Social Security Act in 1935, and it is unlikely that Hoover would ever have embraced any social insurance scheme. Franklin D. Roosevelt played the key role in bringing social insurance to America. Even so, those anxious for more radical change in the American political system were deeply disappointed by President Roosevelt. The President's own values and political mores were actually fairly conservative. And on the issue of economic security, there were much more radical ideas competing with social insurance for the nation's attention.



http://www.ssa.gov/history/32election.html



Well that's my spin! ~GoodFella
Back to top
Nofsdad


Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:36 am    Post subject:  
And it's a good one GF. I know the old thing about learning from history or being doomed to repeat it gets stale, but dammit that's exactly what we've done for the last 150-200 years. Get things under control and going along fairly smoothly and some greedy bunch of wannabe barons decide to corner the market on wealth and the whole damned thing falls flat on its face.

Remember the Hunt Brothers and their run on the silver market about 25 years ago? Remember the massive inflation and the recession we went through? There are still people who claim that it was more than a recession although they hesitate to come right out and use the "D" word, it did set of an inflationary cycle we've never completely recovered from. It only takes a couple of greedy bastards to knock over the whole house of cards.

Then there's a couple of decades of chaos and breakdown of the whole system and eventually we crawl out of our induced economic depression or recession only to have some greedy bunch of bloodsuckers start the whole cycle again. I don't think I'd care to have my entire future dependent on some modern day Hunt Brothers. OR Eddie Lampert and Warren Buffet for that matter.

This time there's not even a solid commodity to go after. Instead we have an entire segment of the financial elite in this country making billions while doing nothing but screwing with other people's money. These people simply do not understand what it means to have to work for a living.

This time wealth itself is the commodity.
Back to top
GoodFella


Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 2205
Location: A little bit sideways!
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:44 am    Post subject:  
Thanks Nofs.

Yep......the Hunt brothers. ~GoodFella

Quote:
In 1973, the Hunt family of Texas, possibly the richest family in America at the time, decided to buy precious metals as a hedge against inflation. Gold could not be held by private citizens at that time, so the Hunts began to buy silver in enormous quantity.

In 1979 the sons of patriarch H.L. Hunt, Nelson Bunker and William Herbert, together with some wealthy Arabs, formed a silver pool. In a short period of time they had amassed more than 200 million ounces of silver, equivalent to half the world's deliverable supply.



http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/education/history/2000/hunt_bros.html
Back to top
centralnj1


Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 232
Location: Greenville, North Carolina
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:36 pm    Post subject:  
Sunday, February 6, 2005

Privatizing Social Security too risky

PAUL KRUGMAN
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

A few weeks ago, I tried to explain the logic of Bush-style Social Security privatization: It is, in effect, as if your financial adviser told you that you wouldn't have enough money when you retire -- but you shouldn't save more. Instead, you should borrow a lot of money, buy stocks and hope for capital gains.

Before President Bush's big speech, a background briefing by a "senior administration official" (which can be found at www.nytimes.com/opinion) made it clear that the plan calls for exactly the "borrow, speculate and hope" strategy I described -- not just for the system as a whole, but for each individual.

Here's the money quote: "In return for the opportunity to get the benefits from the personal account, the person forgoes 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 rate of return" -- after inflation -- "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 rate of return."

Translation: If you put part of your payroll taxes into a personal account, your future benefits will be reduced by an amount equivalent to the amount you would have had to repay if you had borrowed the money at a real interest rate of 3 percent.

Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution got it exactly right: "It's not a nest egg. It's a loan."
Back to top
CCCs


Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:16 am    Post subject:  
Quote:
that quote from Peter Orszag comes from a Washington Post story on Thursday by liberal reporter Jonathon Weisman. His story, based on the same press briefing that Krugman quoted, completely misstated the way Social Security benefits would be offset for personal-account holders. He called it a “clawback,” by which the government would confiscate earnings in your personal account below 3 percent. An array of spokesmen both liberal and conservative — no doubt caught by surprise by Weisman’s revelation of the “clawback,” which does not in reality exist — were quoted about how shocked and dismayed they were by all this. Weisman loves to quote conservatives criticizing Bush; it’s his specialty.

But, of course, this was all simply wrong. After the White House issued a statement noting the error, the Post published a substantially corrected version of the story on its website — removing the quotation from Orszag cited by Krugman in America’s “newspaper of record”!


Krugman Truth Squad

Central's characterization in an earlier post that a person would have to "pay back" the 3 percent that person would have earned in the Social Security after getting a percentage return in a privatized account is completely false and is based on a false assumption in a story by the Washington Post. I would not have to "pay back" the 3 % to the SSA, but I would have to earn more than a 3% +inflation return in order to come out ahead. Of course there is no guarantee that this would happen, but it would be MY money that I am investing and I would rather have an opportunity to invest this money than to count on the government fund to be solvent when it is time for me to draw out my entitlement. This does not qualify as a loan as this is money that I am already paying into the system. Nobody would be required to have a personal investment account. But I for one would opt in.
Back to top
CCCs


Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:42 am    Post subject:  
Nofs wrote:

Quote:
Here we go with the URL game again. I thought the purpose of the original post was to find out what others thought, not to try to sell the plan proposed by the administration. Finding articles by financial pundits who agree with you ain't no big deal. Those that disagree can find just as many to support their own positions.


These quotes from the opinions I listed were an attempt to show why I think that being able to invest a portion of MY OWN Social Security tax dollars would be a good for me. I know that there are people on both sides of the issue, just as there are with all issues. I only hoped to have a meaningful discussion on the pros and cons of the issue, which would allow me to form an educated opinion.

Here is what the Social Security Administration has to say about the issue.

Frequently Asked Questions about Social Security's Future


Quote:
Q: I am retired and receiving a monthly check from Social Security. Are my monthly payments going to be cut?

A: No, there are no plans to cut benefits for current retirees. In fact, benefits will continue to be increased each year with inflation.



Quote:
Q: I'm 35 years old. If nothing is done to improve Social Security, what can I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?
A: Unless changes are made, at age 73 your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 27 percent and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter from presently scheduled levels. See the Trustees Rep



Quote:
Q: How big is the future problem?
A: Social Security is not sustainable over the long term at present benefit and tax rates without large infusions of additional revenue. There will be a massive and growing shortfall over the 75-year period.

Social Security's Chief Actuary projects that in present-value dollars the total net Social Security cash flow for years 2004 through 2078 is projected to be nearly -$5.2 trillion. When the trust fund balances of $1.5 trillion at the beginning of 2004 are added to this value, we get a financial shortfall (or unfunded obligation) for the 75-year period of $3.7 trillion. This unfunded obligation indicates that if an additional $3.7 trillion had been added to the trust fund at the beginning of 2004, the program would have had adequate financing to meet the projected cost of benefits scheduled in current law over the next 75 years. See the Trustees Report



Quote:
Q: If Social Security's financial problem is so long term (negative cash flows not until 2018 and trust fund exhaustion in 2042), why do we need to fix it now?
A: As the Trustees of Social Security, the Comptroller General of the United States and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board have said, the sooner we address the problem, the smaller and less abrupt the changes will be. The independent, bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board has said: "As time goes by, the size of the Social Security problem grows, and the choices available to fix it become more limited." Addressing the problem now will allow today's younger workers planning for their retirement to have a better assurance of the future of Social Security. See the Trustees Report


I realize that have these personal retirement accounts would not be for everyone. But everyone would not be required to participate. In fact, I would argue that many folks would not participate because they have no interest in managing their own retirement. There are many issues that need to be worked out, and knowing how politics works, the plan I would like to see adopted has no real chance of happening at this point. Something needs to be done, as I do not want to pay more and more SSA taxes to see a lesser or no return for myself.
Back to top
CCCs


Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:53 pm    Post subject:  
Quote:
Of course, members of Congress DO NOT PAY Social Security themselves. They have a system similar to a lot of companies to where they have an account, tax free. Something like a golden parachute of sorts. THAT'S WHY they don't have worry about it. Same goes for the President in that he comes from money.


Members of Congress have The Thrift Savings Plan instead of Social Security. In fact, millions of government workers invest in this plan rather than Social Security, a program in which they cannot participate.

Quote:
Used as a model, the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) - a low-risk, low-cost retirement savings plan for federal employees - demonstrates ways to allay these concerns. The TSP is a voluntary program that functions like a 401(k) for federal employees, including members of Congress. Currently, the TSP manages about $100 billion in three million federal employees' individual accounts. The TSP:


1. Insulates Fund from Political risk by employing an independent board, which by law must act in the best interest of the plan's shareholders and benificiaries. The fund is further protected from political manipulations by investing in index funds rather than individual stocks.

2. TSP participants are not able to pick individual stocks. Rather, they choose their investment allocation from among five pre-constructed plans: U.S. Treasury bonds, common stocks, fixed income assets, international stocks and small capitalization stocks. These funds carry varying degrees of risk and reward.

3. Avoids unneccesary risk. Returns from 1993 to 2002
Even though we had been through a dramatic market downturn by the end of 2002, participants in the TSP still posted positive returns in all asset classes. These returns are shown after deducting administrative expenses, and trading costs and accrued investment management fees. Even those in the most conservative investment choice outpaced the return they would have seen in Social Security.

Quote:
-Over any 35-year period ending between 1872 and 2000, the market provided an average annual return of 6.4 percent after inflation

-There were positive gains in every 35-year period and each outperformed what Social Security will pay in return for workers' payroll taxes.
Back to top
Nofsdad


Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 11:41 pm    Post subject:  
For someone who's not trying to sell something you're sure pushing it pretty hard here. You made it clear with the first post that YOU favored it and you backed it up with
Quote:
These quotes from the opinions I listed were an attempt to show why I think that being able to invest a portion of MY OWN Social Security tax dollars would be a good for me.

It's obvious that you won't change the minds of anyone who has posted on the thread up to now, so why three more consecutive unanswered posts all in support of the Bush position if you're not trying to sell it?

I suspect that there would have to be a large number of people "opting in" for this thing to be worth Wall Street's while. I would also expect that there would be a certain amount of effort expended to get others to "opt in" in order to help insure the success of the program.

The problem is largely that your target audience isn't on these forums where the majority of members are workaday folks, often working two jobs and living from check to check with no money or time left over to play Wall Street Games, while a good portion of the minority are people with part time barely over minimum wage jobs that have been reduced to poverty levels by the machinations of the same Wall Street gurus who now want to get their hands on their retirements and the fat fees that this program is going to produce.

While this situation might be an improvement for you it's at the very best a null point for those below a certain level of income and it's a gamble for anyone becoming involved. I'm going to hazard the opinion that the only reason anyone in power gives a damn about this privatization proposal is the increase in wealth for those who make their living from other people's earnings. Concern for the working stiffs at the bottom of the ladder hasn't got a damned thing to do with it.,

Social Security was brought about by the need to see that the very basics of living for elderly and retirees in this country were not compromised by greedy manipulations of Wall Street "Barons" as they had been in the events leading up to the great depression. This proposal is nothing more than an attempt to hand back to Wall Street more of the power that brought about the depression in the first place. It may be desirable for a select few but as always, the rest of us are going to pay the real price for it.
Back to top
CCCs


Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:34 am    Post subject:  
Quote:
It's obvious that you won't change the minds of anyone who has posted on the thread up to now, so why three more consecutive unanswered posts all in support of the Bush position if you're not trying to sell it?


Nofs, who made you the posting police? If you look at my three posts you will notice that they are in response to posts from other people.

Quote:
it's at the very best a null point for those below a certain level of income


How do you figure? If I have one hundred dollars and make 3 percent, that is 3 dollars. If I make 6 percent, that is 6 dollars. It does not matter how much money I invest, if I earn double the amount it is still double the amount.

Quote:
the rest of us are going to pay the real price for it.


The real price will be paid if nothing is done to fix the system before it is too late.
Back to top
Nofsdad


Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:05 am    Post subject:  
[quote="CCCs"]
Quote:

Members of Congress have The Thrift Savings Plan instead of Social Security. In fact, millions of government workers invest in this plan rather than Social Security, a program in which they cannot participate.


Government workers can't participate in Social Security???? I didn't see that. Where did that particular quote come from?

In fact I didn't see anywhere that said the app. 5 million members of this plan paid into it to the exclusion of Social Security on anything other than a voluntary basis. No challenge here but it's not what I'm reading. I was wondering how old your info was and if some changes had been made since the following report to congress came out in September, 2002:

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:GDIb96bsIX0J:www.congressproject.org/retirement2002.pdf+congressional+retirement+plans&hl=en

Quote:
Prior to 1984, neither federal civil service workers nor Members of Congress paid taxes to Social Security, nor were they eligible for Social Security benefits. Members of Congress and other federal employees were instead covered by a separate pension plan called the Civil Service *Retirement* System (CSRS).
The 1983 amendments to the Social SecurityAct (P.L. 98-21) required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. These amendments also required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. Because the CSRS was not designed to coordinate with Social Security, Congress directed the development of a new *retirement* plan for federal workers. The result was the Federal Employees *Retirement* System Act of 1986


Also this one(November, 2002): http://hoaxinfo.com/pensions.htm
Quote:
Is this because Members to Congress don't pay into it? Not at all, since 1983 all federal employees, including Members to Congress have had to pay into Social Security at the same rate as everyone else (presently 6.2 percent). Also, they receive the same benefits, at the same levels as everyone else in the system.


TSP looks like some of the programs we had when I was a state employee, wherein you could take some of your own funds and invest in programs the state made available. These funds however did not come from your retirement or SS contributions however. This was to provide you with income that would be ADDITIONAL to your full retirement or SS benefit.

I'll keep looking but so far I'm finding nothing to indicate that members of congress and federal civil service employees cannot take part in Social Security. In fact, everything I AM finding states that they are REQUIRED to do so.

From your cited web page:
Quote:
Of course, the Thrift Savings Plan and Personal Retirement Accounts differ in significant ways. Notably, the TSP monitors fewer than 5 million accounts, while the Employee Benefits Research Institute predicts that a Social Security PRA plan could include up to 148 million participants.
One of the significant ways in which they differ appears to be the number of pockets Wall Street could get their fingers into. Wink
Back to top
Nofsdad


Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 7077
Location: Central CA
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:11 am    Post subject:  
Quote:
Nofs, who made you the posting police? If you look at my three posts you will notice that they are in response to posts from other people.


The posting police thing was uncalled for. You post items I disagree with, I post disagreement, exactly as you do when you disagree with me. I would be happy to ignore all of your posts if you would like to do the same to mine.
Back to top
CCCs


Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:13 am    Post subject:  
I am sorry to have misstated that fact, but it does not change the point of my post. The TSP is safe enough for government workers, so why shouldn't I have an option of investing some of my social security tax dollars in a similar plan? It is my money that I am investing, so why should I have to settle for a paltry 3 percent return, or less by the time I am able to draw the money out.

As you have pointed out, there is no specific plan in place, and I would withhold my ultimate support until such a plan was proposed and such plan did not hurt the benefits of those not participating in the Private Savings Accounts. But I would certainly hope for an option of Privatizing a portion of my Social Security "investment" if you will.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
   Forum Index -> Politics Schmolitics All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Theme created by Vjacheslav Trushkin