firstdown
06-16-2011, 04:27 PM
Current life expectancy overall in the U.S. is: 77.9.
The gov't shouldn't be in the business of providing people a retirement fund. People should invest their own money, their own way for retirement. We're already too far down that road for many folks, so obviously current and near retirees need to be protected at status quo. However adjustments to SS need to be made for those further out. BTW those adjustments will hurt folks like me who have paid into SS for many years yet face an age increase, benefit reduction, or means testing. Younger folks who haven't paid in as long are less invested, hence affected less.
I'm sure you understand the SS fund has been raided for years by the fed and is essentially a big, fat IOU. If a private corporation had managed its retirement fund the way SS has been managed they would be prosecuted and jailed.
From the survey:
During the Great Recession, most private-sector employees have seen their wages frozen, and some have even watched wages decline,” the chairmen of the deficit panel wrote. “In contrast, federal workers have seen their wages increase.” This option would be a one-time 5 percent cut in federal civilian workers’ pay; the chairmen called for a three-year freeze on pay, which would have a similar effect.
The part about private sector pay being frozen or reduced through forced unpaid leave is true, why shouldn't the federal workers feel some pain as well.
As usual with you far lefties, you demagogue endlessly
Again, from the survey:
Would change health-care plan for veterans who had not been wounded in battle. Premiums, which have not risen in a decade, would rise. More veterans would receive health insurance from employer. This option would also take some benefits, like housing allowances, into account when tying military raises to civilian pay raises. Currently, increases in those benefits come on top of pay raises.
No one is "screwing" veterans, just having them pay slightly more for their health care premiums.....just like everyone else. This also states; non- wounded veterans.
As far as weapons systems, we are already cutting redundant or unneeded weapons systems and the DoD is seeing funding cuts across most agencies/departments. I live in VB and we just saw a massive reduction in JFCOM. So the whole "cut military spending" argument is baseless unless you can bring specific programs or systems that you believe should be cut.
You do realize the majority of military spending is on personnel (soldier/sailors/airmen pay) and operations & maintenance. Should we cut O&M and not maintain our facilities and equipment???? How about cut soldiers pay????
I'm sure you also realize these weapons systems and gov't contractors that are so evil and terrible provide thousands of well-paid tech jobs across the country.
I only marked a small tax increase because the only way to stop a runaway train is to cut off its fuel supply. If we continue to increase taxes to the fed, the politicans and lobbyists have a larger trough to feed from and they will continue their nonsense.
Well at this point the gov't is in the business and they have a bunch of my money. I really don't have a problem with the gov't having some type of retirment system in place but not the current SS system. They need to take a page from Galveston
Just read the difference.
Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.
In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.
Two government studies of the Galveston Plan - by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration - claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher
Its hard to read those number and not know there is a beter alternative to SS but some just want to keep a broken system that is draining the US. Here is a link to the article and its a good read.
Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514)
The gov't shouldn't be in the business of providing people a retirement fund. People should invest their own money, their own way for retirement. We're already too far down that road for many folks, so obviously current and near retirees need to be protected at status quo. However adjustments to SS need to be made for those further out. BTW those adjustments will hurt folks like me who have paid into SS for many years yet face an age increase, benefit reduction, or means testing. Younger folks who haven't paid in as long are less invested, hence affected less.
I'm sure you understand the SS fund has been raided for years by the fed and is essentially a big, fat IOU. If a private corporation had managed its retirement fund the way SS has been managed they would be prosecuted and jailed.
From the survey:
During the Great Recession, most private-sector employees have seen their wages frozen, and some have even watched wages decline,” the chairmen of the deficit panel wrote. “In contrast, federal workers have seen their wages increase.” This option would be a one-time 5 percent cut in federal civilian workers’ pay; the chairmen called for a three-year freeze on pay, which would have a similar effect.
The part about private sector pay being frozen or reduced through forced unpaid leave is true, why shouldn't the federal workers feel some pain as well.
As usual with you far lefties, you demagogue endlessly
Again, from the survey:
Would change health-care plan for veterans who had not been wounded in battle. Premiums, which have not risen in a decade, would rise. More veterans would receive health insurance from employer. This option would also take some benefits, like housing allowances, into account when tying military raises to civilian pay raises. Currently, increases in those benefits come on top of pay raises.
No one is "screwing" veterans, just having them pay slightly more for their health care premiums.....just like everyone else. This also states; non- wounded veterans.
As far as weapons systems, we are already cutting redundant or unneeded weapons systems and the DoD is seeing funding cuts across most agencies/departments. I live in VB and we just saw a massive reduction in JFCOM. So the whole "cut military spending" argument is baseless unless you can bring specific programs or systems that you believe should be cut.
You do realize the majority of military spending is on personnel (soldier/sailors/airmen pay) and operations & maintenance. Should we cut O&M and not maintain our facilities and equipment???? How about cut soldiers pay????
I'm sure you also realize these weapons systems and gov't contractors that are so evil and terrible provide thousands of well-paid tech jobs across the country.
I only marked a small tax increase because the only way to stop a runaway train is to cut off its fuel supply. If we continue to increase taxes to the fed, the politicans and lobbyists have a larger trough to feed from and they will continue their nonsense.
Well at this point the gov't is in the business and they have a bunch of my money. I really don't have a problem with the gov't having some type of retirment system in place but not the current SS system. They need to take a page from Galveston
Just read the difference.
Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.
In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.
Two government studies of the Galveston Plan - by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration - claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher
Its hard to read those number and not know there is a beter alternative to SS but some just want to keep a broken system that is draining the US. Here is a link to the article and its a good read.
Galveston County: A Model for Social Security Reform | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514)