Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
SOCIAL SECURITY:	HANK1	08/08/04
(This must be an issue in ��") SOCIAL SECURITY: (This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.) Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. ! Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it. You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan. In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan. For all practical purposes their plan works like this: When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die. Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments. For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives. (This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries) Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives. Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH.... This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds; "OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"! From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, -every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)- we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits! Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it. Spread the word, guys! HANK
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 08/09/04 11:45 am: I was just doing some research and I came across an article that mentiones that this posting is incorrect. 5 myths about Social Security, By Liz Pulliam Weston http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Retirementandwills/Createaplan/P90016.asp Here's a snippet from the article: Myth No.2: Congress doesn’t pay into Social Security, so it doesn’t care about fixing the crisis. The idea that U.S. lawmakers don’t pay into Social Security is 20 years out of date. Before 1984, U.S. representatives and senators -- like all other federal employees -- weren’t covered by Social Security and didn’t pay into the system. Congress passed a law in 1983, which took effect the next year, requiring all its members (and all federal employees hired after that year) to participate in the system. This myth is often accompanied by the assertion that Congress participates in a private pension scheme that pays them their salaries for the rest of their lives. In fact, the Civil Service Retirement System, which covered federal employees in earlier decades, was closed to new participants after 1983. The pensions available under this old system depend on the federal worker’s pay and tenure with the government, but by law can’t exceed 80% of the final year’s pay. Benefits paid under the system are reduced by the amount of Social Security the participant receives. The reason Congress hasn’t fixed the Social Security crisis is politics. The most likely solutions -- raising taxes, cutting benefits, establishing private accounts or some combination of the three -- all face strong opposition. In addition, the people currently receiving benefits are represented by one of the strongest, most politically-connected lobbies in existence: AARP. The 20-something workers who likely will pay the cost for Congressional inaction don’t have nearly the same clout. Elliot Clarification/Follow-up by HANK1 on 08/09/04 11:58 am: E.T.: Also ... http://www.snopes.com/ What I posted was forwarded to us by a friend of ours. I just made it a question because I thought it was interesting! Just goes to show that one can't believe everything one reads ... but I knew that because I'm an ex-newspaper man!
Answered By		Answered On
ETWolverine		08/09/04
This makes a good point, Hank. In my opinion, the social security system needs to be scrapped completely. I think we ought to be setting up PRIVATE, SELF-RUN retirement plans... that is, each of us should be placing our "social security" money into an IRA-like account, where it may be invested in anything we like, as long as it is rated AA or better. Income would be tax exempt, just like IRA or 401K income. People would be prohibited from touching the money until retirement, to keep the money from being used for other purposes. Borrowings against these funds would be disallowed as well. For those who die before retirement, the moneys would go to a pre-named heir, just as IRA and 401K money does. The result is that WE get to keep our money, instead of giving it to the government to mismanage, WE get to make the investment decisions, and as a general rule, we can make back more than the 1 or 2 percent that the government is making. By doing this, WE control our retirement money, and we are no longer reliant on a bankrupt system that relies on my parents dying early so that there is enough money left in the system for me to collect what I put in. And if I can't make better investment decisions than the Government, then I better hang up my hat as a financial professional. ANY idiot can do better than a 1% or 2% return on investment, just with simple, low-risk government bonds and munis, much less with high-cap equities and AAA corporate bonds (slightly higher risk, but better return). Even a typical mutual fund does better than that. This has been a main Republican plank for their platform for years, and one that Bush tried to work on in 2001, but he got interupted by this little thing called 9-11... Elliot

Additional Options and ratings are only visible when you login!