Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 35916
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/07/09 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/9     

2005/1/26 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:35916 Activity:very high
1/26    Riddle me this: Congress jumpstarted SS, and then contributors got
        out what they put in, plus interest. How does this turn into "our
        grandparents are robbing us"?
        \_ It is because the payout is based on wage increase and not on
           inflation. So someone retired today that is collecting SS is
           getting paid based on todays wages. The other way to do it is
           to base it on inflation. That is bad though because you are
           then expecting retires today to live off of 1940 wages. An
           example is that the average SS receipent today gets about
           1200/month. If SS was based on inflation the payout would be
           around 300/month. That is not enough...
        \_ I think the argument is, the SS system is a progressive one, and
           we can't opt out.  Old folks are currently the ones getting SS
           money.  Therefore, old folks are robbing us.
           Kind of lame logic, but that's what some sodans think.
           \_ No, the logic is that the old folks are taking out more than what
              they put in plus interest.  Therefore we're just keeping them
              afloat, with really nothing set aside for ourselves.  So, in
              essence, by the time we're old, there'll be nothing left.
              \_ How does this jibe with the notion that if there weren't
                 a baby boom hump, social security would be fine?
                 \_ jibe, maybe?
                    \_ oops, learn something every day!
        \_ corrupted into a giant ponzi scheme
           \_ ... how does this jibe with the notion that if there weren't
              a baby boom hump, social security would be fine?
             \_ look, it's a combination of things, like baby boom and the
                increase of medical technology that allowed the boomers to
                live 10-15 years longer than expected. Personally I don't
                see the point of extending lives of 70-80 yr old people
                so that they can live another 10 miserable years, but then
                I digress
                \_ The actuaries who helped devise SS prepared for extended
                   lifespans.  They actually predicted the increase would be
                   larger than it has been.  The ass-talkers are out in force.
                   \_ Did they account for a baby boom bump?
                      \_ No, but there have been adjustments in the last few
                         decades to work on it, and the most conservative
                         estimates put the date of needing to reduce benefits
                         at 2042.
                         \_ 2042 is the year the SSA estimates that the
                            cumulative surplus (after the IOUs/bonds are
                            redeemed) will be drawn to zero, while
                            simultaneously needing to pay more to old folks
                            than we take in social security taxes.
                            This is assuming nothing is done.
                            \_ And the CBO estimates that will not happen\
                               until 2052. Even at that point, SS will be
                               able to meet 75% of its payments on its own.
                               The worst thing that could happen would be
                               that benefits would be cut by 1/4.
                \_ So, SS wasn't devised as a ponzi scheme when it was
                   created, but the system has a solvency problem with the
                   unexpected baby-boom generation and increased longevity?
                \_ The point in extending lives may become clearer once you
                   reach 70-80, as in, Q: "who would want to live to be 80"
                   A: "someone who is 79"
2025/07/09 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/9     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2010/3/2-12 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:53735 Activity:nil
3/1     My sister works for the county and pays into CalPERS instead of
        Social Security. This year she got a second (private sector) job
        which paid more than her government job and paid into Social
        Security. Does she have to contribute to both retirement plans?
        That seems like a waste. I STFW and cannot find the answer.
        \_ You don't pay into CalPERS if you don't have a public sector job.
	...
2008/7/16-23 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Finance/Investment] UID:50587 Activity:nil
7/15    My mom's fixed annuity is maturing and we're wondering what we
        should be doing with it. She's 70 and we gotta put the money
        where it is safe (no stock market, no 401k). What are some good
        choices to make now, considering that the US economy is failing
        and the banking industry is fubar?
        \_ I would buy another fixed annuity with enough of it so that
	...
2008/6/20-23 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:50318 Activity:low
6/20    Hinchey still thinks nationalization of refineries is a good idea, but
        doesn't think it's likely
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369321,00.html
        \_ It's a stupid idea.  He should be shot.  Building more refineries
           and not having 8 zillion different blends for ego stroking reasons
           is a good idea.
	...
2008/6/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50277 Activity:high
6/17    When I first came to California many years ago my advisor invited
        me to his house and gave me an advice that I never really thought
        about until recently. It was dead simple, and had nothing to do
        with what I was studying-- if you ever buy houses in California,
        DON'T SELL THEM. Keep them around, because in time, property tax
        will be so low that it'll take an act of stupidity to sell them. As
	...
2007/11/19-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:48657 Activity:very high
11/19   Warrent Buffet says that the inheritance tax / death tax is a good
mm
        thing.  No surprise since his company makes a fortune buying up
        properties sold to pay for the tax.
        http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/050824
        \_ The problem with death taxes: when I earned the money, I was taxed
	...
2007/10/15-17 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:48327 Activity:moderate
10/15   First Baby Boomer files for Social Security.  DOOM!
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/ap_on_go_ot/boomer_social_security
        \_ Oh shit! They're going to bankrupt the nation. Let's kill them.
           \_ How so?  Social Security is a cornerstone of the socialist
              promise.  You don't want SS but you want universal health care?
              *boggle*!
	...
2007/9/4-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:47896 Activity:very high
9/4     "Annual job growth has definitely not reached pre-recession levels in
        1990s. In California, 200,000 jobs were added last year compared to
        400,000 (annually) between 1997 and 2000. In the United States, we're
        still nowhere where we were in annual job additions as a whole." The
        200,000 increase was unable to keep up with the state's increasing
        population, with unemployment jumping to 5.2 percent in the last 12
	...
2005/6/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:38363 Activity:very high
6/29    Bush administration cancelled a border survey after the results weren't
        positive.  http://www.judicialwatch.org/5350.shtml
        I'm pretty much ready to sell my vote to whoever will actually control
        the border. -emarkp
        \_ who cares?
        \_ So in other words, controlling our border is the most important
	...
2005/5/19 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37757 Activity:moderate
5/19    David Brooks, moderate conservative of the NY Times, on Newsweek
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/opinion/19brooks.html?hp
        \_ Thank you.
        \_ David Brooks is an intellectually dishonest man.
           \_ Examples?
              \_ He's a master of the false dichotomy.  A canonical example:
	...