You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
I sure hope that after Bush wins in November, he will make good on his 2000 promise to privatize Social Security. I don't want the Feds to have a hand in my retirement.
So, let's say they privatize SS. What happens to all the people who currently rely on SS to live? I'm just curious because I've never heard of a real workable plan for this.
Jesse (thinks privatizing SS is a great idea, but thinks the government will screw this up too)
So let's say they don't privatize SS. All the people who rely on SS to live will still get nothing. SS will eventually become insolvent. Caring for the elderly should be the responsibility of the church, not the govt.
cart (agrees with jesse that the govt. will screw up privitizing SS and ultimately thinks SS should be abolished. How libertarian of me. )
My point was that the SS taxes that we pay right now are paying for the people currently on SS. Many of the elderly currently subsisting on SS have no external income. If we privatize SS, who is going to pay for those people.
That's a nice idea about the church, but where is that money going to come from? Many churches barely have enough to stay solvent. What about the elderly with no religious affiliation?
The only way I can see it happening is in an extremely long process. Maybe something like each year the government allows an additional 2% of your SS taxes to be put away into an IRA. Although it may not be popular to make it work without putting the government into further debt you'd have to reduce costs. There aren't many ways to do that without cutting benefits. So, for the people who don't need social security (read wealthy) they would lose their benefits.
The biggest problem I see though in this whole process, is where are the politicians going to get money from to pay for the pork barrel projects that help get them elected?
Jesse, what you are describing was similar to Bush's plan. It gives people the OPTION to put up to 2% of their money into accounts they control, while still allowing the people currently receiving benefits or near to retirement to stay status quo if they want.
IMO, this isn't bold enough (2% is pitiful), but to hear the hysteria it caused, we'd probably be lucky to get some control back.
Plus, participation was to be optional. His plan was simliar to something Joe Liberman was for before joining up with Al Gore.
Interesting. IMO, something needs to be done because the current SS system is a joke. Although 2% may be pitiful, it's probably going to be the only thing politically that may have a chance.
I would think it would make sense to do a "slow ramp" in the next few years - say the first 2 years you could privatize 2%, then 4%, then 6%, etc, until you have control of a greater amount of your funds.
Also, why not simply allow SS fund diversification? IE - you get to pick which sectors you want to invest your SS fund, but you can't touch it 'till benefits are eligible (or is that exactly what we're talking about...)
__________________
There's a fine line between rubbing lotion on yourself and rubbing yourself with lotion.
>> Caring for the elderly should be the responsibility of the church, not the govt.
Well I'm not in a church, so **** you!
Nah, just joking. It's my own responsibility and I got it covered.
An interesting tidbit:
When social security was passed, there were THIRTY workers per retiree. Now there are only THREE.
EDIT: Forgot the word "security" like an idiot.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
Last edited by nbdyfcnsqnc; 06-24-2004 at 11:03 PM.
Originally posted by jesseenglish My point was that the SS taxes that we pay right now are paying for the people currently on SS. Many of the elderly currently subsisting on SS have no external income. If we privatize SS, who is going to pay for those people.
This is a huge point. We are paying for people on SS now. If SS is privatized, who will pay for us later? I don't expect to rely upon SS but that's not the point. If I am investing in SS for others, when I'm retired, I expect the same from the next generation, otherwise, why the heck should I, or anyone else pay SS?
Leave SS alone and make sure it remains well funded for all of us. This is the one "left" social finance issue I say should not be messed with.
>> If SS is privatized, who will pay for us later?
I'd rather pay for myself and for the old people who need it, and then also save for my own retirement. At least that would free future generations of this problem.
Right now it costs more than we'll ever get back anyway, and it discourages people to plan, save, learn about investments, and managing their own fincances. If you design a system where people can be lazy, you encourage people to be lazy.
If people had to be responsible, they mostly would be. Only a small number would fail, and with the stronger economy, charity would do a better job of helping them. But even for liberals who don't trust that that would happen, there could be a safety net program which would investigate to make sure a person is qualified to be helped. Perhaps they'd need to have a mental problem, or they can be normal people who have just had bad circumstances that wiped out their retirements. If they never saved, or if they spent all their money gambling, or were in any way responsible, they wouldn't be paid much less if anything. In other words, it would be easier to just be responsible than to qualify for assistance. But if people truly needed it, the safety net would be there, and nobody would die in the streets even if charity failed (which it wouldn't).
>> I don't expect to rely upon SS but that's not the point. If I am investing in SS for others, when I'm retired, I expect the same from the next generation, otherwise, why the heck should I, or anyone else pay SS?
First of all, it's not an investment because the money is spent immediately. (A lot of it is wasted by the government, and some is paid to those who expect it.)
More importantly, there's a bigger problem if you expect the same as you paid for, because you're never going to. In the future there might be one working young person paying for you, me, and everyone else in this thread combined. At some points that's going to cost more than they can even make.
>> Leave SS alone and make sure it remains well funded for all of us. This is the one "left" social finance issue I say should not be messed with.
It's a big problem now, and it will just continue to grow as long as we leave it alone.
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
>> OK, that's what we have been saying here, but again I ask you; How do you change it without screwing all the old people that are on SSI and can get by on it, but couldn't go back to work if their SSI just ended?
I find implementation details a little too boring. But check out this page:
>> nbdy, your reasoning is sound(as usual), but it would be nice to see you try to propose some working solutions once in a while instead of just idealistic philosophy.
That was sort of a working solution about the investigations and safety net thing. That was all me, with no ideas from any web page or radio shows. In fact, that idea was more from arguing with you than any other source, so thanks
>> I don't think you believe that we should just say; "SSI ends tomorrow, start looking for a job if you haven't made other plans."
I guess we could just ramp it down over some duration of time, like maybe 35 years, prorating it depending on how long or how much people have paid into it. But check out the link above and I'm sure they have better ideas since they've probably spent longer than 15 seconds thinking about it.
Ok, I'm outta here for a few days. (Going to Yosemite.) Have fun everybody...!
__________________ You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.
This reminds me of my campaign promise that after law school i would detail my 10 point plan to fix American government.
It will have to wait until the honeymoon is over.
Pete (is a bad bad naughty President)
__________________
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --Thomas Jefferson
(disturbed to know things about the president's staff)
Anyways,
If you made it a gradual sweep from public to private, ie, 1-4% per year, then within say 40 years the entire SS system is privatized, while not sacrificing those that are currently living on SS.
Also lets not forget that one of the biggest problems with SS is life span expectancy. People retire & collect benefits @ 65, and then live until they're 90, that means 25 YEARS of support. Thats a long time. The elderly population is also in control of a considerable amount of voting power (hell, they're the ones with time to burn)... Whats the latest on SS solvency? 2050? I thought I heard 2045 from somewhere as well. Dammit - thats when I'm going to be hitting my benefits! Argh!!
Dave (will receive full benefits March, 2046)...
__________________
There's a fine line between rubbing lotion on yourself and rubbing yourself with lotion.
Here's an interesting article about Social Security reform. It sounds like it would work, if only the politicians would grow some balls and take action.
Privatize Social Security
)
)
