McCain on social security

[jmiro]

Did i miss something. the man has enough money to run for president and must not really be at an end in his career. I didnt know where to post this. Before you lynch me I know he is the best chance to keep our guns and rights.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/...ocial_security
McCain gets Social Security but criticizes system
By DAVID A. LIEB, Associated Press Writer Thu Jul 17, 3:21 PM ET


KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Although Republican presidential candidate John McCain has called Social Security "a disgrace," he still cashes his own retirement check every month.

"I'm receiving the benefits, the system is broken and, unfortunately, my children and grandchildren, according to the trustees of the Social Security system, will not have the same benefits the present retirees have," McCain told reporters Thursday on his campaign bus.
McCain's 2007 tax return shows Social Security benefits of $23,157 for the year, an average of $1,929.75 a month. He said he started receiving the payments "whenever I was eligible."
Asked last week by a young woman at a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, Ohio, if she is likely to receive Social Security benefits one day, McCain said it is unlikely without fixing the system.
"Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today," he said. "And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed."
Social Security benefits are projected to exceed the system's tax revenues in about nine years. The program's trustees have said the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2041 unless the system is changed.
McCain, who will turn 72 next month, was eligible to receive full-retirement benefits when he turned 65. In 2008, the maximum benefit for a person retiring at full retirement age was $2,185.
McCain reported a total income of $405,409 in 2007. As a senator, he is paid $169,300 a year. Last year, he donated $105,467 to charity, his return shows.
McCain's wife, Cindy, reported a total income of more than $6 million in 2006, according to the campaign. She files her tax return separately from her husband and has received an extension for 2007. Heiress to a large Arizona beer distributorship, she is reportedly worth more than $100 million.
People are not required to take Social Security payments, according to B.J. Jarrett, a spokesman with the Social Security Administration.
"An individual does have the right to refuse his/her Social Security retirement benefit. However, Social Security is an entitlement program and an individual would essentially be forfeiting a benefit based upon contributions during his/her working lifetime," Jarrett said.
___
Associated Press writer Devlin Barrett contributed to this report.

[ThomasJ]

I don't care for McCain, but I don't fault him on this one bit. This isn't a rich or poor issue. I am opposed to social security, but if it's around when it's time for my checks, I will most definitely collect them while saying it needs to be abolished. This is not a hypocritical position; we've had our own money taken from us by force to be redistributed. I have no qualms about receiving my own money - even if it is less than I put in - and calling for SS's abolishment.

[phillychoppin]

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

I don't care for McCain, but I don't fault him on this one bit. This isn't a rich or poor issue. I am opposed to social security, but if it's around when it's time for my checks, I will most definitely collect them while saying it needs to be abolished. This is not a hypocritical position; we've had our own money taken from us by force to be redistributed. I have no qualms about receiving my own money - even if it is less than I put in - and calling for SS's abolishment.

I agree 100%. Social Security is a suckers bet. The concept of an unlimited benefit for a defined contribution is crazy. When SS was first put in place, most people were dead by the time they reached their late sixties. Now it's common for people to live into their 80's and beyond. The problem is that they never really moved the minimum age to collect. It should probably be about 72, not 62.

Anyone who does not plan for retirement outside of social security should have their head checked! Unfortunately, far too many will rely on this "entitlement" program for their only source of income in retirement and either taxes will go through the roof or, more likely, the program will become "needs-based". That's right...suckers like me who scrimp and save to build a retirement nest egg will end up getting screwed out of the "entitlement" system.

Just my $.02.
PC

[Yellowfin]

Social Slavery should be ended right now.

[ThunderingWind]

I have no major problem with Social Security per se. I understand that many people would not save the money if allowed to opt out. So, since there is no option BUT TO participate......

1) It should only pay those who paid in (or the surviving spouse or family)

2) It should only pay what was put in plus the interest earned. Once it is gone, it is gone.

3) I should be allowed to invest it as I see fit (at least my contributions) sor the Privitazation route

4) I should be allowed to set my withdrawl rate when I retire to go along with my other retirement income.

5) When I die and my spouse dies, the remained of MY contributions should be included as Non-Taxable assests to my estate for ditribution as I set forth in my will. The employer contributions go back to the interest-earned pool or something.

[Dredly]

Originally Posted by phillychoppin

I agree 100%. Social Security is a suckers bet. The concept of an unlimited benefit for a defined contribution is crazy. When SS was first put in place, most people were dead by the time they reached their late sixties. Now it's common for people to live into their 80's and beyond. The problem is that they never really moved the minimum age to collect. It should probably be about 72, not 62.

Anyone who does not plan for retirement outside of social security should have their head checked! Unfortunately, far too many will rely on this "entitlement" program for their only source of income in retirement and either taxes will go through the roof or, more likely, the program will become "needs-based". That's right...suckers like me who scrimp and save to build a retirement nest egg will end up getting screwed out of the "entitlement" system.

Just my $.02.
PC

the shitty part is that due to having to pay social security and medicare I can't put the money into my 401K that I want... give me an option to opt out and I'll be first in line. I don't want the gov't to take care of me, I just want them to stop robbing me!

[phillychoppin]

Originally Posted by Dredly

the shitty part is that due to having to pay social security and medicare I can't put the money into my 401K that I want...give me an option to opt out and I'll be first in line. I don't want the gov't to take care of me, I just want them to stop robbing me!

Unfortunately, unless you are a member of congress or the clergy you're not allowed to opt out. That being said, most people don't realize just how much money they take from you for social security/medicare. It's actually almost 15%!!!

Consider this...
If a person starts working today at age 20 and works for 45 years (until age 65) earning minimum wage the entire time and NEVER getting a raise and save 15% of their small salary they will have nearly $2 million at the end of their working life. (I'm assuming a $5.15/hour salary for the entire 45 years and an 11% average return). This amount would allow this minimum wage loser to safely draw over $6,000 per month (4%)without eating into the principle. How much do you think that social security will give him for the SAME contribution? I realize that inflation will eat into this amount but to be fair, minimum wage will surely rise over the coming 45 years.

It boils down to this ... social security is a great thing for some but a bad deal for most people. The likelyhood that it will even be around in its current form 40 years from now is slim so we can probably count on a smaller entitlement check (in real dollars)than our parents/grandparents. You can't opt out so you have 2 choices:

1. Make it a priority to save on your own.
2. Learn to cook Alpo.

It sucks but that's the way it is.

Just another $.02
PC

[lexington86]

Originally Posted by Dredly

the shitty part is that due to having to pay social security and medicare I can't put the money into my 401K that I want... give me an option to opt out and I'll be first in line. I don't want the gov't to take care of me, I just want them to stop robbing me!

Heck yeah! I'll be paying into Social Security all my life (or until it's dismantled) and I know that I won't see a penny of it when I retire. That's why 8% of every paycheck I get goes straight into my 401k (too bad the market sucks right now...). If I didn't have to pay Social Security I'd bump my 401k contribution up.

[Pector55]

If he accepted the money and he had not paid in to it, I could see the hypocrisy. Fact is, he paid in (a buttload) received $23k, and gave over $100k to charity. It would take one hell of an argument to make him look bad on that one. I don't know anyone who gives away 25% of their income to charity.

I believe that doing away with SS would be a great idea if people would move that money to a 401k. Unfortunately, many folks would not be that smart. They would simply spend it and then vote in the first liberal who promised hand-outs once they retire. Face it folks, stupid people are just as at fault as stupid government.

For my 401k, I increase it by half of my merit increase each year. If I get a 3% raise, I raise my 401k contribution by 1.5%. By doing this, I see a little increase in my check but I also save a lot more for retirement. I know folks who have been where I work for over 10 years, who still contribute 1-3%. That's just not going to cut it.

[Skullz]

Originally Posted by Pector55

If he accepted the money and he had not paid in to it, I could see the hypocrisy. Fact is, he paid in (a buttload) received $23k, and gave over $100k to charity. It would take one hell of an argument to make him look bad on that one. I don't know anyone who gives away 25% of their income to charity.

I believe that doing away with SS would be a great idea if people would move that money to a 401k. Unfortunately, many folks would not be that smart. They would simply spend it and then vote in the first liberal who promised hand-outs once they retire. Face it folks, stupid people are just as at fault as stupid government.

For my 401k, I increase it by half of my merit increase each year. If I get a 3% raise, I raise my 401k contribution by 1.5%. By doing this, I see a little increase in my check but I also save a lot more for retirement. I know folks who have been where I work for over 10 years, who still contribute 1-3%. That's just not going to cut it.

I've done something similar. Been doing it since I was 23. When I got my first "real" job, my emplyer contributed dollar for dollar upt to 6% - so I put in 6%. For the next 3 raises, I added whatever the raise was, then I went the half of merit increase route.

This year, I hit the magic 20% number and can contribute no additional funds. My wife is a stay at home mom, so I'm covering for both of us. I need to make an appt. with a financial adviser to see what my other options are. I don;t know if I'm "allowed" to open an IRA or not, etc.

To keep this thread on topic. I'm not counting on one dime being available to me from SS. By the time I retire, the system will be bankrupt - of course, if it's still there and paying out, I'll definitely be taking any check thats written.

I'm also in agreement that SS should be optional, even though I've taken a bath on my 401k this year (basically, the market sucks so bad, I'm only up 1.3% on the year - previously I was getting 12% - 17% annually, even had a year where I got 26%!), it's still worth more than SS.