SwiftVets.com

[shawa]

There is something wrong here when the largest single employer
in the country, the Federal Government, does not contribute to the
Social Security system.

Most recent data available: March 2003 shows

Total employees---2,717,080

Total payroll March 2003---$12,672,951,191

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
BY FUNCTION: MARCH 2003
http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/apes/03fedfun.txt

That's a whole lot of payroll taxes that don't go into the PONZI SCHEME
called Social Security.
While the rest of us schmucks are forced to contribute to a system
that promises us a meager monthly check in our old age.

This has been a big gripe of mine for many years.
If the money confiscated from my paycheck by the government
had been invested over the last 40 years I could retire a near millionaire,
and live comfortably on the interest alone, and pass on
the account to my children when I die.
The magic of compounding interest-- The Rule of 78-- money invested
at 10% interest will double every 7.8 years.

My point to the Dems, Reid & Pelosi et al, if you and your employees
can opt out of the system and have private investment accounts, then
why can't us little people do the same.

Put up or shut up. Either support President Bush's plan OR make
Federal employees pay FICA taxes into Soc.Security.
Look at the Federal payroll, 12.5 billion dollars per month!
That's over 150 BILLION per year.
The way I see it, that's millions of dollars in payroll tax that could be
propping up the system.

[GM Strong]

Market investment is OK for 401(S), EMPLOYER RETIREMENT PLANS, Gummint Retirement plans, personal finances for people like sKerry, Corzine, Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller etc. ad nauseum but too risky for a part of SocSecurity??? DuHHH!
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69

[RogerRabbit]

I understand your gripe and feel SS needs some reforming after 70 years

You must remember that a federal employee, if he/she only is employed by the Government in their working career, is not eligible for benefits. They must pay into the system for 40 quarters to be fully eligible.

There are many, many people on the Federal payroll that do pay into it, they are called the Armed Forces.

Another benefit that the Federal employees , active and retired, is a plush health insurance plan - not available to military or military retirees. They (military) do have Tricare but as most can tell you it does not add up to the FEHP.
_________________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

[blue9t3]

Go get-um Shawa!
_________________
MOPAR-BUYER

[Daniel J. Hutchison]

The card of having the federal employees pay into Social Security has already been played. First they were added to medicare and then into Social Security. (about 20 years ago) If you will look the Federal system is now FERS which inludes a retirement based on Social Security, a private thrift savings account and a very small federal retirement. The thrift savings account part of the "private" federal retirement is what President Bush used as an example of a sucess in providing a better system. The model used 20 years ago on the Federal retirement program is an excellent one to use on changeing Social Security so it will work for our grandchildern.

[shawa]

My main point is that private accounts that grow over a lifetime
of working can ensure a comfortable retirement for all Americans,
instead of a paltry monthly check that one can barely live on.
I want this for my children and grandchildren!!
This article says it better than I can. It was FDR's original vision
for Social Security! (emphasis mine).

http://www.techcentralstation.com/020305H.html

Booing FDR

By Duane D. Freese Published 02/03/2005

Amid the applause, there were a few boos for President George W. Bush during his State of the Union address. Most came from Democrats when the president spoke about reforming Social Security.

But as TV cameras panned the room, even as most Democrats could be seen sitting on their hands, a few did clap as President Bush set out his principles for reforming the system, including offering the creation of voluntary personal accounts for younger workers. And there should have been: After all, it was a Democrat's idea.

No, not, the Democrats Bush mentioned while talking about Social Security -- John Breaux, Tim Penny or the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- but one he quoted in conclusion.


Franklin Roosevelt, the same man whom Bush quoted as saying that "each age is a dream that is dying, or one coming to birth"; the same man who gave birth to Social Security in the midst of recession; also said, in his Message to Congress on Social Security on Jan. 17, 1935:

"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."


Those are the same principles Bush is upholding today, and those Democrats who booed Bush derided them with the same exhalation of breath.


As the new Washington Examiner editorialized in its first edition:

"Consider this: If we let a worker earning a $24,000 invest all his and his employer's Social Security taxes in a modestly performing basket of stocks and bonds, he could retire with a nest egg worth more than $875,000. Social Security, by contrast, promises him benefits worth only $292,230. In effect, Social Security will rob this worker, and millions like him, of half a million dollars."


Another Democrat had figured that out long ago. Sam Beard, who was a staff assistant to Robert F. Kennedy in the 1960s and founded the National Development Council to help low-income communities, authored articles about turning poor workers into "Social Security Millionaires" by allowing them to gradually put their Social Security contributions into private accounts.


As Sen. Moynihan, a staunch Democrat, noted, personal accounts for Social Security would provide the first opportunity for millions of Americans to create wealth. That opportunity is now squandered as an eighth of their income is placed into a system that at best offers a 2 percent rate of return, and that only if taxes for it don't rise and benefits aren't cut. And without reform, that won't happen. By 2042, Social Security will have to raise payroll taxes or cut benefits by a quarter. In either case, the "return" on contributions for average workers will be negative.

For two decades now, I have wondered what is wrong with the anti-reform Democrats. Why are they so opposed to giving poor and middle income workers a better deal? Why are they against poor and middle income workers accumulating wealth? The only answer I have found is that they think that putting money into people's hands will make more people Republicans. But sticking millions of young Americans with a bad deal won't win them many votes either -- not when those young people figure out that the supposed party of Roosevelt has turned its back on its own principles and on them.

They are the death of an old dream, while those Democrats who applauded Bush are the party's best hope for giving birth to a new one.

[RogerRabbit]

[GM Strong]

Retirement at 65 is a myth. Corp. America and Gummint to a great degree push you out at 55 for "early retirement". Big Steel pensions are in trouble for this very reason. Being over 55 I am frequently asked if I am retired. Hell, no!. My Ex destroyed the Retirement funds and the property is gone(personal problem, but not uncommon). I'll be working beyond 65 because I have too. Try getting employment after 55. Option is self employment, but taxes make that hard too. Just have to do it inspite of it all. Raising 'retirement age' is a joke. If liberals would quit trying to provide everything to everybody and screwing the producers to do it, the whole thing would be more manageable. I, for one, am not looking forward to SS.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69

[margie]

I'm confused, I hear the dems saying that our economy is terrible, large deficiets, soaring debt ....but.....social security is solvent for another 50 years? I've heard that there is no "lock box",, the social security taxes have gone into the general fund I've just discribed, and an iou is deposited into the social security fund......is something wrong here? Something doesn't add up.

[srmorton]

Margie, you are absolutely right. There is NO Social Security Trust Fund.
In 2000, when Al Gore spoke of the "lock box", he knew that it was a
figment of his imagination. The IOUs that are used to replace the money
that goes into the general fund will be worthless when the government's
obligation to the retirees begins to exceed the money being collected
from the current workers. I think any one who is not in favor of these
personal accounts should have their heads examined - especially if he
or she is a young person.
_________________
Susan R. Morton

[blue9t3]

srmorton, Im shocked that you could talk about " brother Al " like that. Did'nt anyone tell you he invented the internet?
_________________
MOPAR-BUYER

[GM Strong]