- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
should we privatize social security?
- Thread starter Dancing Fire
- Start date
- Status
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
I could make a lot more by investing my own money than the government can. All those liberals in congress that are against it think we can''t possbly be as smart as they are and can''t possibly make our own decisions, plus it would make society less dependent on them. Well, we already manage our own money and lives better, thank you. Our investments actually have a return on them. Social Security was set up to be a supplement to your retirement income, not the sole source of it. I dont'' even include it in any retirement planning. Our financial planner does, but we don''t.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 17,395
No, I do not think it should be privatized. I also think that when Social Security first came into being it was planned to be your source of retirment income. Up until that point, there was virtually no retirment system. That was many decades ago; things have certainly changed since then. If people were soley in control of their own money, some would find good investments for themselves. The majority wouldn''t - and then they would still be dependent upon the government. I have been told that the stock market ebbs and flows and that in no ten year period would you have lost money. However, if your retirment comes at a bad time in the market, you are on the losing side. People that live paycheck to paycheck can''t be bothered about investing their money for the future. They don''t have disposable income - they are just trying to get through today. A government insured plan is a safe bet for them.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,632
It seems there is a misconception on what social security is for. Before social security existed in the United States, the elderly comprised the largest group in poverty. Social security is a safety net, for both people who work at jobs with low wages (yes, someone does have to do those jobs) who do not have the resources to save sufficiently for retirement, and for women (widowed, divorced) who perhaps never held a traditional job yet who will still need to eat in old age.
It is not an "investment". It is a social contract.
If you have the resources and means to save for retirement and not need social security that is great. But social security wasn''t created for people for you. It wasn''t something created to make people rich (certainly not all the private investment firms talking in Bush''s ear). And the last thing those people need is a system that diverts money from a guarranteed, fixed income to something with increased risk, no minimum income, and most probably lower payments. The reason I say that is analyses performed looking at various scenarious of percentage of money into private investment and rates of returns, the majority of scenarios had people receiving LOWER payments for Bush''s plan than traditional social security.
It is not an "investment". It is a social contract.
If you have the resources and means to save for retirement and not need social security that is great. But social security wasn''t created for people for you. It wasn''t something created to make people rich (certainly not all the private investment firms talking in Bush''s ear). And the last thing those people need is a system that diverts money from a guarranteed, fixed income to something with increased risk, no minimum income, and most probably lower payments. The reason I say that is analyses performed looking at various scenarious of percentage of money into private investment and rates of returns, the majority of scenarios had people receiving LOWER payments for Bush''s plan than traditional social security.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,632
I agree with the concept of social security, but yes as time goes by, something will need to be adjusted. Everyone has heard the figures how at the very beginning there were 11 people paying into SS for every one person receiving, going down to 7 for every one person receiving, to now (or very soon) 3 people for every one person. Simple math says that people farther down the pike (those younger) will receive less money than those currently. However even Bush agrees his plan will not solve this problem. The main choices is that the younger you are the less money you will receive from Social security, or contributions to SS will have to increase, or that money for social security will come from somewhere else in the budget (which hasn''t been done before).
I hope young people will realize while SS will probably not be "bankrupt" when it is their time to withdraw from it, it will probably be less than what their yearly statements say they will receive, and to plan accordingly.
I hope young people will realize while SS will probably not be "bankrupt" when it is their time to withdraw from it, it will probably be less than what their yearly statements say they will receive, and to plan accordingly.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 17,395
I think that young people just starting out in the workforce are well aware of the potential problems with social security and will set up other savings plans if the funds are there. However, folks that are more than half way to retirement age have counted on social security to ''supplement'' their private plans. At what point do you pull the rug and decide to do it a different way? It also takes a great deal of self control and responsibility to do the investing yourself - you have to think of what''s best for ALL Americans - not just a select few. I''m not saying that this plan should not be looked at and possibly revamped - I just don''t like the proposal on the table now. It is a question to be dealt with though; baby boomers will be retiring in record numbers!
Who ever thought 15 years ago that your retirement date and plans would hinge so heavily on your health insurance? It used to be a few dollars a week - no one gave it a second thought. Now it is first and foremost on everyone nearing retirment age minds.
Who ever thought 15 years ago that your retirement date and plans would hinge so heavily on your health insurance? It used to be a few dollars a week - no one gave it a second thought. Now it is first and foremost on everyone nearing retirment age minds.
lmurden
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,101
lmurden
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,101
Rank Amateur
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,555
It is not your money. Dispel that notion from your head. It is like any other tax you pay out to feed the massive entitlement system. It go bye-bye. Don't expect a cent back.
Now, would I be for a reduction in the 15% FICA tax rate to, say, 8%, and let me put the other 7% in my 401k? Boy...I'd really need to think about that one...
It has become a social program and entitlement like welfare so I can see where you''d say it''s not "my" or "our" money. I strongly disagree though. We do not live in a socialist country where the government takes what is earned and redistributes it so everyone is poor. I earn so much per hour and based on that a percentage is taken out. Taxes are mine too, but I have to pay them and can affect how much by my deductions. I dont'' get that option with this "tax". I don''t think it''s being managed properly and if I feel I can invest it better, I should have the option. Also, the President''s plan doesn''t include anyone near retirement so as not to lose their money. And as for what social security was set up for, it was set up as a Supplement. I don''t like when people think it''s the government''s job to take care of them financially. It''s not. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you''re entitled to money from the government. Also, I think it''s pretty offensive when some liberal thinks they can take better care of me or my family than I can, or know what''s "best" for me.
lmurden
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,101
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 17,395
Ask anyone who worked and earned and PAID into Social Security that is now collecting a check in their retirement years if they feel like welfare recipients. I doubt that they do. I have parents and inlaws that are living on it - and they are not living high on the hog. They paid into it as required by law; they collect their monthly checks as provided by that same law. Trust me - they don''t feel ''entitled''. While I agree that it is not the government''s job to provide for everyone, an 80 year old that has worked since the age of 15 and contributed to that system for as long as it has been in place just feels that they are getting what the system promised. My eighty one year old step father worked everyday until he had open heart surgery six months ago - he is now in a nursing/rehab center and may never leave. Where were his ''retirement'' years? He worked EVERY DAY - even after he began collecting social security. Why? Because it simply wasn''t enough to live on. He even paid a penalty every year for dollars he earned over the specified amount. We can all talk the talk - but until you have walked the walk - you don''t have a leg to stand on. Life can be a trying journey for some - none of us knows for sure what shape we''ll be in as older folks - either physically or financially. Life is what happens as you are busy making your plans.
Demelza
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,327
No, we don''t live in a socialist society; we live in a capitalist society, a meritocracy, if you will. Everyone has equal opportunity to succeed, right? If you work hard, you will necessarily reep the benefits of your labor. It''s logical, then, to assume that if someone isn''t doing well financially, they must be lazy, stupid, or inept. That way of thinking sure takes the burden off of the rest of us to take care of those people. Problem is, we don''t live in a meritocracy...far from it. Someone who grows up in an impoverished environment doesn''t, in my mind, have equal opportunity to succeed as someone who grows up in an environment in which food, clothing, shelter, and educational opportunities are plentiful. I won''t even mention race in this equation, but it''s there. I''ve never understood why the idea of the government making provisions to help those who are less fortunate is like anathema to some people. The US is the richest nation in the world. Why shouldn''t we help people who, for a variety of reasons, are simply unable to pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Other less wealthy civilized countries do it far better than we do. Yes, the social security system needs to be revamped so that it is more efficient, but don''t throw the baby out with the bathwater. It would be an absolute shame. And I don''t mind if anyone calls me a bleeding heart liberal -- I wear that label proudly
.
Rank Amateur
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,555
It''s not "yours" in the first place. There is nothing to "take" from you. It is an entitlement which may or may not be there when you retire. And who knows what that retirement age will be in 30 years - they will keep raising it. Also, keep in mind that your employer pays half for you. That half was never your money to begin with (unless of course you own the joint).
It is a big ol'' Ponzi scheme. If there aren''t enough people in the scheme to pay you when you are old, then guess what - you don''t get anything. Conversely, there are many who paid in little or nothing but get quite a lot. It''s a handout.
As far as paying in "since you''ve been 16", you don''t expect to get back any of your local or State taxes when you get old, do you? In my mind it''s no different. The high income people who pay and pay and pay on the 1.65% (I think that''s the right medicare number and there''s no limit) really get screwed. They may never see any of that money or benefits.
Make it a regular tax. Make everybody pay into it (yes that means you, teachers and RR workers and politicians). Lower the rate.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 17,395
When you pay into something, it is yours. As far as taxes go, we all enjoy things that they provide like roads, services, etc. I work in a school system and I do pay social security. My husband owns a business so he pays his half and his business pays the other half - for himself and all of his employees. Your social security payments are based on your income so if you don''t pay in alot you won''t get alot at the end of the road. It is not a perfect system; however, I would much prefer my payroll taxes - Federal, State and FICA - go to citizens of this country first. We seem to have plenty of money to help those less fortunate than ourselves overseas. Charity begins at home.
lmurden
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,101
Actually, that''s sort of a fallacy. Sure the more you pay into the system - the more your SS payments are. BUT - the relative % is skewed. In other words, someone who makes $200,000 a year won''t get a payment of 6 or 7 times the amount of someone who makes $30,000 a year.
I''m gonna say it - but (for the most part) someone who can''t scrape together $10.00 a week to put into a retirement account is doing something wrong. Heck, that''s someone''s cable bill. You don''t need cable if you don''t have an extra $10.00.
How many of you 20 year olds are contributing to a retirement account? I don''t see it as an option. I see it as a necessity.
Nobody is advocating yanking some older folks SS. All the examination is in the future.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,632
"I''m gonna say it - but (for the most part) someone who can''t scrape together $10.00 a week to put into a retirement account is doing something wrong. Heck, that''s someone''s cable bill. You don''t need cable if you don''t have an extra $10.00."
Fire and Ice, there are people out there that are making $7 an hour. Yes, it is difficult for those people to save for retirement. Heck, it is difficult for those people to pay for basic neccessities. We''re not talking about the difference between cable or no cable. Our minimum wage is laughable.
No offense to the rich people out there, but one of the most positive driving force in America''s prosperity, economy and progress is our large and healthy middle class. Social security has been one of the drivers to maintain a middle class. Because of policies that the current administration is pushing through (you name it- tax cuts for the wealthy, elimination of estate taxes, corporate greed at unprecedended levels with no checks from the government) and now attacks on social security, the poverty rate in this country is increasing and the middle class is eroding. It''s already happening.
If we lose the middle class, this country is going south in a real hurry.
Fire and Ice, there are people out there that are making $7 an hour. Yes, it is difficult for those people to save for retirement. Heck, it is difficult for those people to pay for basic neccessities. We''re not talking about the difference between cable or no cable. Our minimum wage is laughable.
No offense to the rich people out there, but one of the most positive driving force in America''s prosperity, economy and progress is our large and healthy middle class. Social security has been one of the drivers to maintain a middle class. Because of policies that the current administration is pushing through (you name it- tax cuts for the wealthy, elimination of estate taxes, corporate greed at unprecedended levels with no checks from the government) and now attacks on social security, the poverty rate in this country is increasing and the middle class is eroding. It''s already happening.
If we lose the middle class, this country is going south in a real hurry.
Well, because of the economic situation in the early 80's and because I choose to abandon my career path, I did take a job paying minimum wage. I had an apartment shared with 4 girls, had decent clothing & I was able to save more than $10.00 a week.
Yes, I think there will always be the exception for various reasons; but, I don't think it's the rule. If anything, I think financial people should volunteer their time to minimum wage earner's where they can cut back & plan financially. I'm sorry -people are not entitled to Pepsi when a glass of water is essentially free. That's not something I pulled out of the blue. I cut that out of my budget.
And, minimum wage is relative to today's time.
Edited to add - the middle class is alive and well in my neck of the woods.
And, I'd like to see the statistics about cable & minimum wage earners. Honestly, I see more satilite dishes is the poorer areas of town. Thing is I know people who have far better TV's than I who declare bankruptcy.
I think affordable healthcare is the plague of this nation.
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,632
I think healthcare is the greatest strain on the poor wage earners and especially to the middleish class. It''s the number one reason for bankrupcies. These aren''t people who can''t budget. These are people who can''t pay - especially those without health insurance or have a maximum.
For example, I saw a hernia bill for 18k. The insurance company negotiated with the hospital down to 3k. The insurer paid 250.00 total. If the person didn''t have insurance to strong arm a negotiation, they would have been liable for the full 18k.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,632
Dancing Fire, your view well may be the mainstream now, but it didn''t always used to be that way.
Long, but definitely worth the read. It even talks about the estate tax.
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ForRicher.html
Long, but definitely worth the read. It even talks about the estate tax.
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ForRicher.html
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
i think for the younger generation, they won''t see their first check until their 80th birthday .IF....SS still exist.Date: 9/13/2005 5:13:03 PM
Author: lmurden
Hell No!
Social Security is one of the best government programs to come into existence. Have a heart .We don''t want to be a society were we leave our less fortunate senior out to dry.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
lmurden
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,101
- Status
300x240.png)