Friday, June 01, 2007
Group Agrees, Fixing Social Security Means Some Will Get Short-Changed
Personal accounts are not the answer to fixing Social Security but other changes and program cuts are going to be necessary for the program to last past the retirement of baby boomers.
At least, that was the perspective of most participants at a public issues forum hosted by University of Missouri Extension. The forum was aimed at deliberating Social Security, whether or not it needs to be fixed and some possible ways to fix it.
“We had a diverse group of attendees who considered three different approaches to dealing with or fixing social security,” said David Burton, civic communication specialist with University of Missouri Extension and moderator of the forum.
According to Burton, participants (even those approaching retirement) agreed with reducing Social Security benefits by eliminating the $250 funeral benefit, slowing annual “cost-of-living increases, removing the $90,000 ceiling on payroll taxes, setting up a national commission to develop a list of long-term options, lowering benefits for middle- and upper-income retirees, requiring Americans to work longer before becoming eligible for Social Security benefits and reducing the number of non-retirement related programs Social Security funds.
“The group also thought that for the long-term health of the program, the nation needs to revisit the purpose of Social Security. President Roosevelt said it should be one leg of a three-legged stool (pension, savings and Social Security) instead of what it has become – the only source of retirement for many,” said Burton.
The first approach deliberated dealt with reinventing the program with personal accounts, something proposed by both President Clinton and current President Bush.
“Overall, the group was opposed to this approach. Too many questions and concerns, the greatest of which was serious doubt that a majority of Americans would be responsible enough to manage personal accounts,” said Burton.
While some attendees said they would benefit personally, this was not seen as a way to solve the financial problems of Social Security itself.
In the post-meeting survey, 100 percent of participants disagreed with this statement: “People will get far better returns on their Social Security contributions if they control how their money is invested.”
Approach two of the deliberation emphasized that Social Security is a promise made to working Americans and to retires, and it is a promise that must be kept.
“The group agreed that Social Security is a promise that needs to be kept. However, no one thought the promise could be kept or maintained at its current level,” said Burton.
At this forum there was widespread agreement that benefits should be reduced (eliminate $250 funeral benefit), annual increases should be slowed, the $90,000 ceiling on payroll taxes should be removed and a national commission should be formed to develop a list of options.
In the post meeting survey, 90 percent of participants agreed with this statement: “We need to make drastic changes to save Social Security from bankruptcy.” Sixty percent of participants agreed with this statement: “We should scale back Social Security to encourage people to take more responsibility for their financial future.”
Revising Social Security for a new generation was considered in approach number three.
“It was interesting, even though the group was mostly older, they agreed that reform is needed in order for the program to continue,” said Burton.
Part of the reform embraced at this forum was addressing the fact that Social Security has been expanded beyond its original intent and is no longer just one leg of a three-legged retirement stool (pension, social security and savings). For many, it is the only leg.
“Participants felt like we need to begin the process of rewriting Social Security now but not implement new rules on people who are age 55 or older. It may seem unfair, but the younger generation will bare the blunt of most Social Security changes,” said Burton.
In the post meeting survey, 80 percent of participants agreed with this statement: “We should slightly reduce Social Security benefits for middle- and upper-income retirees to guarantee benefits for those who need them most.”
“What attendees at this meeting said loud and clear is that Social Security needs an overhaul that ignores partisan politics and instead focuses on making sure the program remains solvent into the future without increasing the burden on payroll taxes,” said Burton.
At least, that was the perspective of most participants at a public issues forum hosted by University of Missouri Extension. The forum was aimed at deliberating Social Security, whether or not it needs to be fixed and some possible ways to fix it.
“We had a diverse group of attendees who considered three different approaches to dealing with or fixing social security,” said David Burton, civic communication specialist with University of Missouri Extension and moderator of the forum.
According to Burton, participants (even those approaching retirement) agreed with reducing Social Security benefits by eliminating the $250 funeral benefit, slowing annual “cost-of-living increases, removing the $90,000 ceiling on payroll taxes, setting up a national commission to develop a list of long-term options, lowering benefits for middle- and upper-income retirees, requiring Americans to work longer before becoming eligible for Social Security benefits and reducing the number of non-retirement related programs Social Security funds.
“The group also thought that for the long-term health of the program, the nation needs to revisit the purpose of Social Security. President Roosevelt said it should be one leg of a three-legged stool (pension, savings and Social Security) instead of what it has become – the only source of retirement for many,” said Burton.
The first approach deliberated dealt with reinventing the program with personal accounts, something proposed by both President Clinton and current President Bush.
“Overall, the group was opposed to this approach. Too many questions and concerns, the greatest of which was serious doubt that a majority of Americans would be responsible enough to manage personal accounts,” said Burton.
While some attendees said they would benefit personally, this was not seen as a way to solve the financial problems of Social Security itself.
In the post-meeting survey, 100 percent of participants disagreed with this statement: “People will get far better returns on their Social Security contributions if they control how their money is invested.”
Approach two of the deliberation emphasized that Social Security is a promise made to working Americans and to retires, and it is a promise that must be kept.
“The group agreed that Social Security is a promise that needs to be kept. However, no one thought the promise could be kept or maintained at its current level,” said Burton.
At this forum there was widespread agreement that benefits should be reduced (eliminate $250 funeral benefit), annual increases should be slowed, the $90,000 ceiling on payroll taxes should be removed and a national commission should be formed to develop a list of options.
In the post meeting survey, 90 percent of participants agreed with this statement: “We need to make drastic changes to save Social Security from bankruptcy.” Sixty percent of participants agreed with this statement: “We should scale back Social Security to encourage people to take more responsibility for their financial future.”
Revising Social Security for a new generation was considered in approach number three.
“It was interesting, even though the group was mostly older, they agreed that reform is needed in order for the program to continue,” said Burton.
Part of the reform embraced at this forum was addressing the fact that Social Security has been expanded beyond its original intent and is no longer just one leg of a three-legged retirement stool (pension, social security and savings). For many, it is the only leg.
“Participants felt like we need to begin the process of rewriting Social Security now but not implement new rules on people who are age 55 or older. It may seem unfair, but the younger generation will bare the blunt of most Social Security changes,” said Burton.
In the post meeting survey, 80 percent of participants agreed with this statement: “We should slightly reduce Social Security benefits for middle- and upper-income retirees to guarantee benefits for those who need them most.”
“What attendees at this meeting said loud and clear is that Social Security needs an overhaul that ignores partisan politics and instead focuses on making sure the program remains solvent into the future without increasing the burden on payroll taxes,” said Burton.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
One reason to target Obama may be that he went out of his way to make Social Security reform an issue during the Democratic primaries. Back before the Iowa caucus, Obama was very clear that he -- in contrast to Senator Clinton -- had a specific plan to fix Social Security: eliminate the payroll tax cap for those making over $250,000 a year.
----------------
althea
Missouri Treatment Centers
----------------
althea
Missouri Treatment Centers
SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRACT
Date of Original Contract: August 14, 1935 Contracted by the United States Government of America
Contracted with: The American people including: ______________________________________
(Print Full Legal Name)
Statement:
On August 14, 1935, our USA government made a sacred promise to the American people ----- a promise that if we paid into the Social Security system for our entire lives, our money would be returned to us with interest in our retirement. and that the government would then pay Social Security benefits to this person to maintain a GOOD life style for this person for the rest of their normal life. Remove the Social Security CAP and give us a $330 PER MONTH PAY RAISE like Congress GAVE THEMSELVES 2005! My signature on this Contract makes it perfectly clear that:
I have trusted the promise of Social Security;
I rely on my FAIR SHARE of Social Security benefits and want them to continue uninterrupted and TAX FREE;
I trust my conservative leaders to reform my Social Security and guarantee my TAX FREE, FAIR SHARE retirement security;
I am trusting Congress to put my TAX FREE, FAIR SHARE of retirement security on sound financial footing and Preserve my TAX FREE Social Security;
I expect the 110th Congress to keep this CONTRACT with me and with every American and NOT to break this CONTRACT and give ANY Social Security money to ANY ILLEGAL alien or to Mexico!
Signature: ____________________________________________ Date _____/ ____/ _________
CONGRESS, remove the Social Security CAP and let the RICH MADOFF's ALSO pay their FAIR SHARE INTO SOCIAL SECURITY like everyone else. Then pay Social Security recipients a FAIR, TAX FREE, SOCIAL SECURITY INCREASE IN BENEFITS TO HELP PAY FOR THE RICH PEOPLES NEW HIGHER PROFITS ON JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING like all of the higher living expenses like $1,500 a month rent, higher housing costs, cars, $4 to $5 per gallon for gasoline, higher health costs, insurance, A LOT HIGHER FOOD PRICES, and of course the rise in THEIR gasoline PROFITS for the RICH. Then give the Social Security RECIPIENTS a VERY LARGE $330, PLUS ANOTHER $390, PER MONTH PAY RISE LIKE Madoff CONGRESS GAVE THEMSELVES 2005, 2008! So that Social Security RECIPIENTS can also survive or at least break even and not go under and lose everything because we trusted our government to keep their word when our government set up the social security system and told the American people that if the American people would pay into Social Security until the people were 65 years old and that the government would then pay Social Security benefits to this person to maintain a GOOD life style for this person for the rest of their normal life. And not be so poor that you had to sleep under a bridge to try to stay dry and then have to go beg for food on the street corner because Social Security will not pay enough money to live with or even be able for you to survive. Then in 2005 Congress gives themselves a $330 PER MONTH PAY RAISE. WHY NOT DO THE SAME FOR SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS? I get about $1,067 Social Security dollars per month and for a nice house or nice apartment, rent is about $1,500 per month. And ALL things are going up fast and higher besides my Social Security benefits and they are about under the low end of the poor people. Is this what Congress wants for all Social Security Recipients to be below the low end of the poor people?
I cashed my Social Security check for $1067 and paid my monthly bills of $1015 which left me about $52 to buy gas for my car for all of this month, food to eat for all of this month, to buy all of my family Christmas presents for about 30 people, and pay postage for some of these Christmas presents. Can you pay for all of these things and do this on $52? Or IN 2005, 2008 did you just give yourself a nice $330, $390, PER MONTH PAY RAISE LIKE YOU NEED TO DO FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS?
Save Social Security FOR American Seniors - Not 54 MILLION ILLEGAL workers from Mexico!
Defend our Earned Social Security Benefits! And give us enough TAX FREE Social Security money to live a GOOD life, and not be forced to sleeping under a bridge to stay dry and then have to beg for food on a street corner to stay alive, because of our present Congress and their views on Social Security Recipients?
Post a Comment
Date of Original Contract: August 14, 1935 Contracted by the United States Government of America
Contracted with: The American people including: ______________________________________
(Print Full Legal Name)
Statement:
On August 14, 1935, our USA government made a sacred promise to the American people ----- a promise that if we paid into the Social Security system for our entire lives, our money would be returned to us with interest in our retirement. and that the government would then pay Social Security benefits to this person to maintain a GOOD life style for this person for the rest of their normal life. Remove the Social Security CAP and give us a $330 PER MONTH PAY RAISE like Congress GAVE THEMSELVES 2005! My signature on this Contract makes it perfectly clear that:
I have trusted the promise of Social Security;
I rely on my FAIR SHARE of Social Security benefits and want them to continue uninterrupted and TAX FREE;
I trust my conservative leaders to reform my Social Security and guarantee my TAX FREE, FAIR SHARE retirement security;
I am trusting Congress to put my TAX FREE, FAIR SHARE of retirement security on sound financial footing and Preserve my TAX FREE Social Security;
I expect the 110th Congress to keep this CONTRACT with me and with every American and NOT to break this CONTRACT and give ANY Social Security money to ANY ILLEGAL alien or to Mexico!
Signature: ____________________________________________ Date _____/ ____/ _________
CONGRESS, remove the Social Security CAP and let the RICH MADOFF's ALSO pay their FAIR SHARE INTO SOCIAL SECURITY like everyone else. Then pay Social Security recipients a FAIR, TAX FREE, SOCIAL SECURITY INCREASE IN BENEFITS TO HELP PAY FOR THE RICH PEOPLES NEW HIGHER PROFITS ON JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING like all of the higher living expenses like $1,500 a month rent, higher housing costs, cars, $4 to $5 per gallon for gasoline, higher health costs, insurance, A LOT HIGHER FOOD PRICES, and of course the rise in THEIR gasoline PROFITS for the RICH. Then give the Social Security RECIPIENTS a VERY LARGE $330, PLUS ANOTHER $390, PER MONTH PAY RISE LIKE Madoff CONGRESS GAVE THEMSELVES 2005, 2008! So that Social Security RECIPIENTS can also survive or at least break even and not go under and lose everything because we trusted our government to keep their word when our government set up the social security system and told the American people that if the American people would pay into Social Security until the people were 65 years old and that the government would then pay Social Security benefits to this person to maintain a GOOD life style for this person for the rest of their normal life. And not be so poor that you had to sleep under a bridge to try to stay dry and then have to go beg for food on the street corner because Social Security will not pay enough money to live with or even be able for you to survive. Then in 2005 Congress gives themselves a $330 PER MONTH PAY RAISE. WHY NOT DO THE SAME FOR SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS? I get about $1,067 Social Security dollars per month and for a nice house or nice apartment, rent is about $1,500 per month. And ALL things are going up fast and higher besides my Social Security benefits and they are about under the low end of the poor people. Is this what Congress wants for all Social Security Recipients to be below the low end of the poor people?
I cashed my Social Security check for $1067 and paid my monthly bills of $1015 which left me about $52 to buy gas for my car for all of this month, food to eat for all of this month, to buy all of my family Christmas presents for about 30 people, and pay postage for some of these Christmas presents. Can you pay for all of these things and do this on $52? Or IN 2005, 2008 did you just give yourself a nice $330, $390, PER MONTH PAY RAISE LIKE YOU NEED TO DO FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS?
Save Social Security FOR American Seniors - Not 54 MILLION ILLEGAL workers from Mexico!
Defend our Earned Social Security Benefits! And give us enough TAX FREE Social Security money to live a GOOD life, and not be forced to sleeping under a bridge to stay dry and then have to beg for food on a street corner to stay alive, because of our present Congress and their views on Social Security Recipients?
# posted by 
: 10:18 PM
: 10:18 PM Links to this post:
<< Home
