should we privatize social security?

[fire&ice]

Date: 9/15/2005 10:32:16 AM
Author: lmurden
Honestly, I think it is a bit much to expect a twenty year old should be starting a retirement account. Talk about pressure! Some parents really teach their kids about saving but most don''t and the school system sure doesn''t. Most people learn by trial and error.

I don''t think it''s a bit much at all. You graduate from college. You start your career. You start a retirement account. It''s a no brainer. Many employers will lay out a 401k program. I''m not advocating a big chunk of pay check. Just SOMETHING - many employers will match it - I simply can not see not taking advantage of this.

It''s a parent''s responsiblity to teach responsibility. I had a checkbook the same week I started to work. I learned pretty fast that you can''t have more money going out than was coming in. And, we were taught a family living class which included budgets. But, admittedly this was back in the 70''s. I took shop & typing also. They must still have electives in school. But, I would fathom a guess that with the competitive nature of college prep - these classes wouldn''t be as impressive. Sad - as they really teach skills needed for life.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

I have a friend who when he was 27ish, told me that he was going to start thinking about saving for retirement when he hit 30! I was totally shocked

There was a recent article in The Christian Science Monitor about the imminent transfer of wealth between the seniors and baby boomers. It''s being billed as the greatest transfer of wealth ever, worth about $25 trillion for all heirs.

What if each American took it upon themselves to NOT draw down Social Security if they don''t need it? Instead of viewing it as "I paid in, so now I''m entitled to draw down" (we know that there simply won''t be much left for the Gen Xers and younger), we resolved to leave SS to those who truly need it. Personally, I don''t think Americans would go for that, but it''s an idea...

 

[lmurden]

Here are some facts from the Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2004 American Community Survey
and Social Security Facts

• Only 27% of Americans have a four year degree so most people are not graduating college by age twenty.
• 10.1% of American Families below poverty level.
• 13.1% of American Individuals are below the poverty level
• Social Security provided more than 1/2 of the total income for almost 2/3 of households comprised exclusively of those aged 65 and older and provided at least 90% of income for a 1/3 of this group.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguide_socialsecurityfacts
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh04.html

 

[fire&ice]

I''m unsure how the statistics are relative? My point is that when one enters the work force (typically in their 20''s), one should start to contribute to a private retirement account. The amount to be determined. How is this not prudent, especially since many employers match? What better time to save than while you are only supporting yourself or have dual incomes - the target audience of PS for the most part.

I am saying as matter of possible fact that SS may not be there. Heck, my generation never counted on it, hence the reason we are saving. Save any opportunity costs that may arise (this is where one determines how much), I think it''s not only prudent but possibly necessary.

I ask how is saving for a retirement account sooner rather than later not a good idea & should be encouraged? It''s still your money.

 

[lmurden]

Date: 9/15/2005 2:07:53 PM
Author: fire&ice
I''m unsure how the statistics are relative? My point is that when one enters the work force (typically in their 20''s), one should start to contribute to a private retirement account. The amount to be determined. How is this not prudent, especially since many employers match? What better time to save than while you are only supporting yourself or have dual incomes - the target audience of PS for the most part.

I am saying as matter of possible fact that SS may not be there. Heck, my generation never counted on it, hence the reason we are saving. Save any opportunity costs that may arise (this is where one determines how much), I think it''s not only prudent but possibly necessary.

I ask how is saving for a retirement account sooner rather than later not a good idea & should be encouraged? It''s still your money.

Are you telling me that the fact that Social Security provides for more than 50% of the total income for almost 2/3 of households comprised exclusively of those aged 65 and older and provided at least 90% of income for a 1/3 of this group is not relevant?

This is crazy! I guess we should put the seniors out to pasture who don''t have enough money to support themselves without relying on Social Security Insurance even thought they paid into the system and were told that they would get a little something back when they retire to protect them from poverty as much as possible.

Here''s a thought, maybe the Federal Government shouldn''t us SSI for other expenditures!

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 9/15/2005 2:54:51 PM
Author: lmurden

Date: 9/15/2005 2:07:53 PM
Author: fire&ice
I''m unsure how the statistics are relative? My point is that when one enters the work force (typically in their 20''s), one should start to contribute to a private retirement account. The amount to be determined. How is this not prudent, especially since many employers match? What better time to save than while you are only supporting yourself or have dual incomes - the target audience of PS for the most part.

I am saying as matter of possible fact that SS may not be there. Heck, my generation never counted on it, hence the reason we are saving. Save any opportunity costs that may arise (this is where one determines how much), I think it''s not only prudent but possibly necessary.

I ask how is saving for a retirement account sooner rather than later not a good idea & should be encouraged? It''s still your money.

Are you telling me that the fact that Social Security provides for more than 50% of the total income for almost 2/3 of households comprised exclusively of those aged 65 and older and provided at least 90% of income for a 1/3 of this group is not relevant?

This is crazy! I guess we should put the seniors out to pasture who don''t have enough money to support themselves without relying on Social Security Insurance even thought they paid into the system and were told that they would get a little something back when they retire to protect them from poverty as much as possible.

Here''s a thought, maybe the Federal Government shouldn''t us SSI for other expenditures!

You have failed to address my ONLY point in this debate. I think it''s prudent to save for retirement early on. I don''t control governmental spending or SS %. But, I''m hedging my bet in case SS won''t be there in the *FUTURE*. If anything, your statistics of the elderly, should be a case in point for SAVING EARLY for retirement & not have to rely on SS.

I''ve never been an advocate for raiding the SS fund. I''m an advocate for protecting oneself at an early age. That is my only point.

You state it''s too much pressure for a 20 something year old to start a retirement account. I don''t. Let''s just agree to disagree.

 

[lmurden]

We all know that saving is essential but some people can barely pay their rent or provide food for their children to have enough to save. Anyway most Americans hardly have any savings so can you really expect a twenty year old to start a retirement account. Also I haven''t heard anything in the news that says twenty-one are saving more because they don''t think that SSI will be around when they are old. Anyway worst come to worst we can get rid of those who can''t take care of themselves!

Ok, let''s agree to disagree.