Minorities in politics: only the "right kind" coun

[twl1973]

[quote="Martin Blank";p="511377"][quote="Silux";p="511010"]

5. Is this personal account untouchable, or can it be withdrawn early or borrowed against like a 401k? What type of penalties will that incur? If it can be withdrawn early, don't you think we'd see a lot of the lower income earners continually emptying their accounts out it to help them make ends meet here and now instead of decades down the line? If it is untouchable, see question 6.[/quote]
Generally speaking, yes, it's untouchable, unless you are permanently disabled prior to retirement age. You may have the opportunity to take out limited loans for unexpected financial demands such as medical care, and failure to repay may be penalized somehow.[/quote]

I was looking through the archive and this piqued my interest as I've been looking at retirement plans with my new job. A little known fact is that before 1983 state and local governments could actually opt-out of social security if they setup their own type of social security.

Here's an article on what happened when one of the local governments put into place such a system and the ramifications of that system.

As this system has been going on for about 15 years you can see that it has weathered the financial storms.

[Deacon]

That sounds like a pretty cool system. I think they're limiting themselves to a certain extent, but apparently they favor less long-term return on less short-term risk.

[Dr. Tower]

If it was mandatory, and the taxpayers don't have individual choice on where the money gets put for their account, I would prefer a lower risk/lower reward setup. I do agree, however, that that is a pretty cool system (one that I would like to see).

I would guess also that those that put money into SS before 1981 were still able to take benefits based on what they put into SS, otherwise those who were close to retirement would have been royally screwed. This is something that the county did not have to worry much about, however, where as the national version of SS does. It is just something to think about.

Another possibility as to where the money could be put would be government bonds. Right now the interest rate on the 10 year note is about 4%, certainly not spectacular, but it is fairly risk free in that you won't lose money on it if you hold it for its full term.

[twl1973]

[quote="Deacon";p="520771"]That sounds like a pretty cool system. I think they're limiting themselves to a certain extent, but apparently they favor less long-term return on less short-term risk.[/quote]

From reading more articles on this they had to go this route so that the plan would be approved. Another article referenced that another county had a plan where you had a choice to put the money into the stock market but only 24 percent of the people have done that and that a lot of people have soured on that aspect due to the downturn of the market.

Another idea that was interesting but could cause problems nationwide is the lump sum payout. When you retire you have the option of taking all of your retirement money in one lump sum. I could see this working for some people but others might not have the financial foresight to use it responsibly.

[Deacon]

[quote="twl1973";p="520785"]a lot of people have soured on that aspect due to the short-term downturn of the market.[/quote]
You forgot a word, so I inserted it for you

Another idea that was interesting but could cause problems nationwide is the lump sum payout. When you retire you have the option of taking all of your retirement money in one lump sum. I could see this working for some people but others might not have the financial foresight to use it responsibly.

I wonder when people got the idea that they have a right to retire and that they have a right to demand that the government pay for it by taking someone else's money.

[Silux]

[quote="Deacon";p="520786"]I wonder when people got the idea that they have a right to retire and that they have a right to demand that the government pay for it by taking someone else's money.[/quote]

1935. Next question.

[Terrik]

Maybe, but I do believe the retirement age was pretty dang close to the average age of death at the time as well. Not so much anymore. Hence, we're paying..much..much..more than originally intended, no?

[Deacon]

Yes, it's been dealt with back earlier in this thread. You might want to read it from the beginning just to make sure you're caught up. You can skip to where it starts getting good, or go right to the post with most of that info regarding death and life expectancy and such. An excerpt of just the beginning of that large paragraph:

[quote="Deacon";p="509466"]Additionally, let's consider this magic finish line once crosses by remaining alive past a certain point. In 1935, when the SSA was formed, the average life expectancy--for newborns, mind you, not for those who were already old--for baby boys was 59 years, 63 for baby girls. You could start pulling minimal Social Security benefits at 62. The average man would be dead by then, leaving the average widow with an option to receive benefits for a year or two. And that's if you managed to even live that long. Certainly not EVERYONE lived that long, and a few centenarians throwing the curve aren't really a significant "burden" on the system. Basically, you had a whole lot of people paying taxes to lend a little support to a few people to make sure they at least had money to eat and to help their families as they took care of them in their last couple of waning years. And those who never had kids weren't worried about it, as they had plenty of opportunity to provide for themselves long-term.[/quote]

[Silux]

Living longer and the ability to work longer are two separate issues.

http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/ ... nt_age.pdf

[Deacon]

*sigh*

[peter-griffin]

[quote="Silux";p="520845"]Living longer and the ability to work longer are two separate issues.

http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/ ... nt_age.pdf[/quote]

funny, i always thought retirement and public funds could be two seperate issues

what happens when retirees live out their lives and end up with as many years retired as working?

[Silux]

[quote="peter-griffin";p="521008"]funny, i always thought retirement and public funds could be two seperate issues[/quote]

You're welcome to hold that opinion. It just hasn't been the case for the past 70 years.

[peter-griffin]

[quote="Silux";p="521073"][quote="peter-griffin";p="521008"]funny, i always thought retirement and public funds could be two seperate issues[/quote]

You're welcome to hold that opinion. It just hasn't been the case for the past 70 years.[/quote]

what hasn't been the case? myself not having that opinion? that's not fair, i wasn't even born yet : (