13
13
0
For those that are unaware members of the Railroad Retirement Board system are exempt from Social Security and use the RRB instead. Currently the RRB rules are more generous than SS and the RRB is allowed to invest surplus funds via a non-profit trust. Currently the RRB has a $25 Billion surplus and allows railroad members with 30 years service to retire at age 60 with full benefits.
Posted in these groups: 
Election 2016
Republicans
DemocratsSocial Security Administration
Retirement
Election 2016 Republicans DemocratsSocial Security Administration Retirement
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 36
0
0
0
The RRB seems to be a good model for Social Security to apply. However the first order of business is for the "borrowed" funds to be return. They are apparently used as an unaccountable slush fund with no intention of them being returned. Return the funds, invest wisely, and employ people then, as projected, the Social Security fund would replenish and grow.
(0)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
OK on the borrowed funds. I realize there are different viewpoints on that depending on the source folks use for research. They did transfer out the Capital Funds to spend on General Budget items BUT they replaced them with Treasury Bonds. Some folks refer to the T-Bills as IOU's which is not really that far off. However, Social Security would be investing in other funds to earn interest. Treasury Bonds only suck as an investment the past few years because of the stimulus and quantitative easing applied to the economy reduced their paid out interest rate to almost zero. As Interest rates rise though the bonds will payout higher and higher amounts of money to the Social Security Trust fund and it is concievable at some point in the future if the Economy revs up hot enough, they will be pouring into the SS Trust Fund a lot more money than was anticipated. Anyways, sorry for the long post but my point is that I am not sure replacing them is a good idea at this point. We'll see though how the Economy performs.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I would pay back everyone what they paid into it so far and close the program. I checked out my statement. I could quit working today and when I draw it would be only 3 years before I got back my money back. After that it is free money from the Gov't. Makes no sense.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Do what England did in 1988;
1. Admit that the program is broken. Do not apply blame; not constructive and won't really solve anything.
2. Stop the program.
3. Make everyone accountable for their own retirement using stock investments. A guaranteed minimum pension is set and each person is responsible for contributing to that minimum. The plan is set up so that there is no risk. If the portfolio picked by the citizen does well, their portfolio does well. If it doesn't, they get the guaranteed minimum. No risk. Ever.
4. Refund everyone's contributions two-fold. If you had 1000 in your pot, the government gives you 2000. As a side bonus, when you find a plan to put your money in to, the government then matches your contribution. So if you picked a plan with MetLife and put 2000 in to it, the government would put 2000 in as well. AFTER THAT POINT, THE GOVERNMENT HAS WASHED ITS HANDS OF YOU, CONTRIBUTION-WISE.
5. Give everyone one year to turn over to the new system. Failure to do so and the government cuts off your matching bonus. So if you joined the plan and put 2000 in it, the government puts nothing.
6. Age 65 for pulling your funds out tax-free.
7. Remove Social Security disability. Put in place an AFLAC-type policy that pays out if you're sick/disabled.
1. Admit that the program is broken. Do not apply blame; not constructive and won't really solve anything.
2. Stop the program.
3. Make everyone accountable for their own retirement using stock investments. A guaranteed minimum pension is set and each person is responsible for contributing to that minimum. The plan is set up so that there is no risk. If the portfolio picked by the citizen does well, their portfolio does well. If it doesn't, they get the guaranteed minimum. No risk. Ever.
4. Refund everyone's contributions two-fold. If you had 1000 in your pot, the government gives you 2000. As a side bonus, when you find a plan to put your money in to, the government then matches your contribution. So if you picked a plan with MetLife and put 2000 in to it, the government would put 2000 in as well. AFTER THAT POINT, THE GOVERNMENT HAS WASHED ITS HANDS OF YOU, CONTRIBUTION-WISE.
5. Give everyone one year to turn over to the new system. Failure to do so and the government cuts off your matching bonus. So if you joined the plan and put 2000 in it, the government puts nothing.
6. Age 65 for pulling your funds out tax-free.
7. Remove Social Security disability. Put in place an AFLAC-type policy that pays out if you're sick/disabled.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Stop politicians from raiding it, AND STOP LAWYERS and malingerers from raiding it ( I am constantly meeting YOUNG 18-low 20 yr olds who are retired and on SSI, that appear healthy ,maybe work under the table a bit to...( I know I am not a Dr and its not my place to judge) BUT if all the SS money is paid out to 19 yr olds who "hurt my back,knee etc" stop putting in, and expect to draw forever,,,how the hell is that possible? I know a cousin who is blatantly abusing this LEGALLY WITH A LAWYERS help (for a cut).........Our SSI and welfare system are to easy to game. Just my 2cents worth...............
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Regarding one of the choices... There is no Constitutional basis for SS in the first place. So an amendment for its funding makes little sense.
Social security was only meant to be collected by people who outlived their expected lifespan, and then likely to be collected for a short time. When SS was enacted the average lifespan was 65, the same age as the entitlement began. Also there were about 43 workers for every recipient. Today, there are about 4 workers for every recipient, and people collect for SS for decades. So, either we increase the entitlement age back up to the average lifespan, raise taxes, or phase this unworkable plan out of existence.
Social security was only meant to be collected by people who outlived their expected lifespan, and then likely to be collected for a short time. When SS was enacted the average lifespan was 65, the same age as the entitlement began. Also there were about 43 workers for every recipient. Today, there are about 4 workers for every recipient, and people collect for SS for decades. So, either we increase the entitlement age back up to the average lifespan, raise taxes, or phase this unworkable plan out of existence.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
OK I'll pull the pin and open it up more. The difference between RRB and SS is there's a firewall on what the funds can be used for with the RRB and much looser on SS. Actually both methodologies are outdated and bloated. The sheer weight of administration, watchers watching the watchers who watch, etc. is essentially nonproductive waste of money. When the RRB says the money "is primarily from" railroad and payroll taxes, that's codespeak for John Q Taxpayer getting shafted for the rest. I'd propose a mandatory ongoing IRA program by everyone. For those who don't want to think, it could be patterned after TSP which has few choices but isn't bloated like the other systems. Maybe a mandatory horizon plan that adjusts with age. BTW everybody pays. If you make more, you'll get more. With the reduction of corporate tax (we need that), a portion would be retained for employer contribution, preferably matching similar to TSP. Overall everyone is an investor with their money working for them. I took a look at what my SS cumulative is compared to what I'll get out. What a waste! I could have made much more by that steering into TSP G Funds my whole life, that's how bad it is. I'll get jumped on by those wanting to ensure everyone has a "minimum" entitlement. Great topic for discussion, but get the first things in order first. Another what if musing, but just looking at the two choices, I think we can do better than that.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google