Comments on: Number of Workers per Social Security Beneficiary

By: geo8144

geo8144 — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:48:09 +0000

I have read comments for several mornings,nice to see that so many have the same concerns I have with the pickle our politicians have us in.Thankyou Mr Perot for this site.Our politicians at least most of them have no idea how the working class lives they are all wealthy,ya have to be to run.Also they have their own retirement plan so we cant count on them to make the right decisions.We used to be one of the most weathy countries in the world!So what do we do,we sign NAFTA not free trade but free labor! lowered our tax base and it was all down hill from there.How many good paying jobs that had a retirement plan in place for their employees was lost to NAFTA.I often wonder,our the politicians that pushed it through thinking,wow maybe nafta wasnt a good idea.I voted for Mr perot wish there would be another like him.

By: johntoner1

johntoner1 — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:01:17 +0000

JimS is on target. The problem: U.S. gov’mt has GROSSLY over-promised. Solutions: either (1) TRIM back NOW on promised benefits ; or (2) DO NOTHING, and wait for a TOTAL DEFAULT in the future. Which sounds better to you?

A combination of approaches is probably needed, including: (1) gradually expanding retirement age for ALL (by 2 – 5 years); (2) gradually reducing benefits by means-testing for SOME; and (3) gradually shifting towards private style accounts.

And, God forbid that our #@*! “leaders” create any NEW “entitlements”, like the idiot Bush (i voted for him) and Congress passing the recent senior drug entitlement law. Talk about throwing gas on the fire!

Sadly, reform will likely never happen because it requires something more rare than weapons-grade plutonium: political courage and leadership. McCain doesn’t have it, and Obama SURE doesn’t have it. Wish we had a democrat like Andrew Jackson or republican like Lincoln again!

By: jims

jims — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:16:56 +0000

PatG, I’m not sure my point was clear. Doesn’t it seem some how messed up that our social “security” system will send Bill Gates a check every month? Nothing wrong with Bill Gates – worked hard, earned a lot, captain of industry. But our social security system has NO limit – that just makes it more expensive.

And I have to ask, what happens to Preeder’s farmers $2M in land and equipment when the couple dies? I just think we hard working, self responsible people should first live off what we’ve earned before we look to the government to send us a monthly check.

Maybe I’ve missed PatG’s point. Are you advocating the complete elimination of social security? I’m curious.

By: PatG

PatG — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:08:47 +0000

I can’t help but think JimS has this backwards. There will always be an exceedingly small group of people that has never wanted for anything. But for the vast majority, what JimS proposes would punish those who have worked hard and sacrificed for decades to prepare for their retirement. People who have saved even when they didn’t have money and have resisted any luxuries to secure their future.

While there will also always be a sizable group that simple can’t afford to save anything for retirement. I would think the majority of the group of people JimS proposes to save are those that simply chose not to worry about retirement because they assumed somehow they would get through or the government would take care of them. I have a hard time swallowing that approach.

While I would not want to abandon people who have no other source of income, I can’t see punishing preparation and rewarding procrastination. Sorry, but a different approach is needed.

By: jims

jims — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:17:29 +0000

Perhaps a farmer with a net worth of $2M in land and equipment should take personal responsibility for his/her finances late in life and sell the place or – more realistically – make use of a financial instrument to use the wealth that has been accumulated in the land and equipment.

The problem with arguments such as preeder makes is that people who have a ton of money in the bank still cash checks from an almost bankrupt social security system.

By: preeder

preeder — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:47:19 +0000

In response to jims….

The problem with placing some arbitrary number, such as $2M, on anything is that the United States is a big place. A $2M house in San Diego is a much different house than a $2M house in rural South Dakota.

Or consider an aging farmer with a large spread of land. The land and equipment might have a net worth $2M, but it is unrealistic to expect that farmer to be able to live off said land.

Arguments such as jims’s tend to lend itself to changing social security into a means of wealth redistribution. That is not the purpose of social security.

By: jims

jims — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:43:10 +0000

It is a simple matter to means test social security. If net worth exceeds some limit, benefits are reduced. At some point the person gets no benefits. Someone with $2M in assets (including real estate equity) should get paid no SS benefit. This seems very easy to implement, but the politics of “I paid into SS and I want my money back” will keep this from happening.