Do you still think privatizing Soc Security is a good idea?

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"Least we not forget, all federal employees do not pay into social security as they have a 401k like plan. If such a thing is good enough for federal employees, it is good enough for the rest of us." -
charrison, 10/04/2002 8:38 PM

HELL NO, I WON'T FVCKING FORGET IT!

...the FACT is, SS is just one more lame, screwed up, doomed to fail, typical Liberal Democrat program!

Many Federal workers have wonderful retirement accounts and pay zip into SS. Anyone care to explain to me why the rest of us shouldn't have the same option? :|

holy hell, I just visited the link to the democrat's site, and saw that social insecurity wheelchair thing. They actually make fun of bush's speech impediment in it. I thought Democrats were sensitive to personal issues? They're dis'in him because of a studder? What kind of a message is that to all the kids in the US with the same problem?

 

[vi edit]

Al Gore made it one of his major campaign promisses to take the first major step to end pay-as-you-go SS. He wasn't elected. Bush made privitazation one of his major campaign promisses, he has done nothing. So it is possible that Gore would have done nothing as well - however at least he wanted to start ending that silly practice.

Presidents can huff and puff all they want, but if congress gives them the finger on what they want to do, the point is pretty much moot. There isn't hardly a democratic congressman out there that would vote to privatize SS, and and many republicans would see it as political suicide to change it due to the the high number of elderly republican voters.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: klah

Originally posted by: Mister T

Originally posted by: klah
Here is the definition of SS: SS Definition

pyramid scheme
An illegal investment scheme in which investors are promised ridiculous returns on their investments. Early investors are paid with money from later investors, but the system inevitably collapses and later investors get nothing.

yup, 1-2% is ridiculous indeed...

Right now you earn 4 SS credits/year for having ~$3500/yr income (6.2% to SS). After 40 credits (10 years) you are fully vested in the system. After age 67 you will get $1500/month(minimum) for the rest of your life. So 10 years of SS will give you $180,000 return on a $2200 investment. This is the case for every 55 year old legal immigrant that enters the US and works for 10 years.

That's great. Nice to know the money I've earned wiill be a good investment for them. Too bad for me that in fifty years, when I want to retire, I'll be able to support myself with what's left over after SS and other money is spent on other people.

Hail Mother America.

Hey, point the finger at the right group.

Replublicans = Americans = Capitalists = Good
Democrats = Socialists = Communists = Evil

We have to take back America. STAB ALL LIBERALS!


er... no don't stab... just vote them out of office.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: klah

Originally posted by: Mister T

Originally posted by: klah
Here is the definition of SS: SS Definition

pyramid scheme
An illegal investment scheme in which investors are promised ridiculous returns on their investments. Early investors are paid with money from later investors, but the system inevitably collapses and later investors get nothing.

yup, 1-2% is ridiculous indeed...

Right now you earn 4 SS credits/year for having ~$3500/yr income (6.2% to SS). After 40 credits (10 years) you are fully vested in the system. After age 67 you will get $1500/month(minimum) for the rest of your life. So 10 years of SS will give you $180,000 return on a $2200 investment. This is the case for every 55 year old legal immigrant that enters the US and works for 10 years.

That's great. Nice to know the money I've earned wiill be a good investment for them. Too bad for me that in fifty years, when I want to retire, I'll be able to support myself with what's left over after SS and other money is spent on other people.

Hail Mother America.

Hey, point the finger at the right group.

Replublicans = Americans = Capitalists = Good
Democrats = Socialists = Communists = Evil

We have to take back America. STAB ALL LIBERALS!


er... no don't stab... just vote them out of office.

Weren't you the guy that called someone stupid for not knowing there were 8 planets in our solar system? And then later claimed it was a joke? Lol.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: dullard

The way it is now is screwed up. I blame democrats.

Al Gore made it one of his major campaign promisses to take the first major step to end pay-as-you-go SS. He wasn't elected. Bush made privitazation one of his major campaign promisses, he has done nothing. So it is possible that Gore would have done nothing as well - however at least he wanted to start ending that silly practice.

What does SS have to do with the president. The democrats are in charge of the Senate, why aren't they accomplishing their goals there?


It seems to me that everyone's focus is too strong on the Presidency itself. Our nation was founded on the belief we are governed by our elected piers, based per state. The individual states should have the most power, to prevent a Unified dictatorship type goverment. When Clinton gained office, he becamse a national icon both good and bad, and basically stole the show. Many of his (and her) policies were fed by power they weren't supposed to have.

Bush is doing exactly what he should be doing in his role, and is be the Commander in Chief. Economy, education, SS, are all important, but not the focus of the president. He just has veto power. Tom Daschle is the one that should be leading SS reform - any program reform - because that's what he's voted into office to do. Why does everybody, including Daschle, have this confused and twisted?

 

[Torghn]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: klah

Originally posted by: Mister T

Originally posted by: klah Here is the definition of SS: SS Definition

pyramid scheme An illegal investment scheme in which investors are promised ridiculous returns on their investments. Early investors are paid with money from later investors, but the system inevitably collapses and later investors get nothing.

yup, 1-2% is ridiculous indeed...

Right now you earn 4 SS credits/year for having ~$3500/yr income (6.2% to SS). After 40 credits (10 years) you are fully vested in the system. After age 67 you will get $1500/month(minimum) for the rest of your life. So 10 years of SS will give you $180,000 return on a $2200 investment. This is the case for every 55 year old legal immigrant that enters the US and works for 10 years.

That's great. Nice to know the money I've earned wiill be a good investment for them. Too bad for me that in fifty years, when I want to retire, I'll be able to support myself with what's left over after SS and other money is spent on other people. Hail Mother America.

Hey, point the finger at the right group. Replublicans = Americans = Capitalists = Good Democrats = Socialists = Communists = Evil We have to take back America. STAB ALL LIBERALS! er... no don't stab... just vote them out of office.

Weren't you the guy that called someone stupid for not knowing there were 8 planets in our solar system? And then later claimed it was a joke? Lol.

Doesn't matter if he was, the last statement is so true it forgives him of any previous mistakes.

 

[dullard]

Why does everybody, including Daschle, have this confused and twisted?

There is a thing called loyalty. People in congress will vote for things they are against just to show party unity. Everyone has different opinions - no two people are alike. But well over half of Republican members have voted for whatever their party leaders wanted in every vote since I've been watching (early 1990's). You'd have to be an idiot to think that those people agreed with every single thing their leadership has ever said. That is why the president matters. If he truely wants something, he could get the majority in the house and 49 votes in the senate. Only if all democrats band together can they stop that from passing - and democrats historically can't band together very well (some will vote for what they believe is right instead of blindly following their fellow democrats). Thus if the president wants something, he will get it.

 

[Tominator]

In 1998 the Clinton Administration estimated the cost in taxes of entitlement programs and that is what Social Security is, at approximately 66% of earned income.

Think about it. Includeing Social Security, which we already know will not be self-sustaining, and Government pensions your tax rate will be at least 66% of your earned income by the year 2030.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Tominator
In 1998 the Clinton Administration estimated the cost in taxes of entitlement programs and that is what Social Security is, at approximately 66% of earned income.

Think about it. Includeing Social Security, which we already know will not be self-sustaining, and Government pensions your tax rate will be at least 66% of your earned income by the year 2030.

well i always wanted to live in sweden... though the tax rate wasn't the reason...

 

[tcsenter]

Personally, I was never for it. To me social security is about security rather than gains. Furthermore, it isn't designed to provide complete financial support for retired persons. If I choose, I can allocate some of my income to market investments. Now, with a year of losses, I am convinced that its a bad idea.

It depends, the devil is in the details. There is nothing inherently wrong with privatizing a portion of every contribution, something along the lines of one out of every 5 - 7 dollars. However, the true risk lies in oversight and management of these funds. The goal of the government's SS 'portfolio' as I'll refer to it should be conservative to moderate growth, which would preclude higher risk categories.

And let's face it, if everyone had heeded the advice their grandmother gave them in 1st grade, they wouldn't have lost any money: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

But the moderate long-term growth philosophy which has proven so prudent for our parents, that wasn't good enough, no. We think we deserve better, we think we're 'entitled' to higher returns, to retire 10 years sooner with three times more money. People were intoxicated, drunk with the promise of high returns. I remember the atmosphere, people were behaving like fools, "It just keeps going higher and higher, we're all going to get rich, rich I tell you! AHAHHAHHAH!"

My parents didn't buy it, they stuck with bonds, treasury bills, CDs, some stock in large blue chip 50 year-old companies they've held for 25 years, and the conventional IRA's they've had since the mid-1970's. They lost nothing. Granted, their interest bearing stuff is performing horribly, but they lost not a penny of principle.

Neither of my parents are high school graduates, neither of them attended school beyond the 9th grade, because they were poor and had to work. But even they understand the meaning of INVESTMENT RISK. Higher return, higher risk. Lower return, lower risk. To say this is basic Investing 101 is even an overstatement. This is stuff a high school drop-out should understand.

So everyone opted for high returns, thus, high risk. Now they're crying because they lost an amount that was perfectly commensurate with the risk they took? Oh boo hoo!

But I digress...

 

[tcsenter]

I'm not exactly sure how it currently works... BUT, how the heck did it end up where current tax payers are paying for current retirees? That makes no financial sense.

In fact, that is how it was sold to the American people, a greater percentage of whom couldn't read or write back then. Social Security was always intended to be what socialists call a "pay-as-you-go" system, which means exactly as you said, earlier "investors" (the government calls them contributors) are paid with the contributions of later "investors". If it sounds like a pyramid scheme, that's because it is a classic pyramid scheme, and the largest ever devised I might add. Pyramid schemes are forbidden by federal law, the government apparently didn't want the competition.

 

[SuperTool]

No, it's a terrible idea. Which explains why Bush is for it
Private investment is for private savings. Social security is guaranteed funds. What happens if someone loses all their privatized funds? Government is not just going to let them starve, and end up paying for their shortfall anyway. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Vic]

I'm against privatizing SS. You know why? Because, if given control of their SS funds, a large percentage of people will lose most their money. And because it would be unfair for us to allow them to fall victim to their own stupidity (the program is called Social Security after all), the rest of us would have to pick up that slack.
The idea of privatizing SS was and still is nothing but a grand pie-in-the-sky money-making scheme for the stock market. The very thought of it causes some of the major brokerage houses to cream themselves thinking about the fee income they could generate from history's largest ever single transaction. GW made that campaign promise so he could get their vote, plus the votes of the less knowledgeable who actually thought it would be better than our current system. It would not. At best, (as noted above) most people would squander theirs. More realistically, the accounts would get raided, most likely right at the get-go with outrageously high start-up costs.
SS needs to be ended and the participants need to be refunded. End of story.

 

[Ameesh]

id rather have a chance on my own then not get at my money at all.

 

[Ornery]

Many Federal workers have wonderful retirement accounts and pay zip into SS. PSYWVic & SuperTool, care to explain to me why the rest of us shouldn't have the same option?

 

[glenn1]

Private investment is for private savings. Social security is guaranteed funds.

Guaranteed by who????? Congress could change the laws regarding Social Security tomorrow, heck revoke it even. There's absolutely NO guarantee with social security whatsoever, apart from the promise of a politician. And if you believe that, i have a bridge i'd like to sell you with your social security money.

I'm against privatizing SS. You know why? Because, if given control of their SS funds, a large percentage of people will lose most their money.

Let me make you a proposition. If you give me $200 now and every month for the rest of your life, i'll promise to pay you $1,000 a month once you turn 65. That is, if i don't change my mind before then, which there's absolutely nothing stopping me from doing since we don't have a contract, this is just an informal agreement. And oh yeah, if you die before then, tough luck, i'm keeping your money, your next-of-kin won't get a penny of it.

Or, you can keep that money, and invest it in whatever you like. No matter what, it's yours to keep, use, you own it. You can pass it down to your heirs. Of course, there's no "guaranteed return" like what i'm offering you, but hey, that's how the ball bounces.

Does that sound like an arrangement you'd agree to? Because with the current state of social security, that's exactly what it is.

 

[Tripleshot]

Many Federal workers have wonderful retirement accounts and pay zip into SS. PSYWVic & SuperTool, care to explain to me why the rest of us shouldn't have the same option?

Uh, I damn sure think federal workers retirement funds are being paid for by my taxes. I think that is total BS! Federal workers don't do anything to support my retirement. Make all government workers contribute into SS or whatever you like, as long as it is equal and fair, and then I might endorse a change. Beyond that, as bad as it is, its all there is now. If your young, If your working, and you want to "suppliment" your SS retirement, invest in a mutual or IRA or whatever. God Bless ya for doing so.

But be careful about spouting the failure of SS. It is not failed<yet>. It needs some tooling, but to eliminate it or invest it in risky schemes is not good for those retirees who make a paltry $800/mo (which is much more normal than that $1500 someone spouted off about) and cuts in benifits?-----Hell, they can't even make it on the $800/mo.

And what about health care? Only the rich can afford it without some assistance. Health care is totally out of control, and no one in congress or in the white house as done a damn thing about that. I suspect too many payoffs by freakin health care lobbiests going into campaign coffers. Talk about a spiral!

 

[rahvin]

It's amazing the number of you that are commenting on the federal retirement program and actually have no idea what it encompasses or how it's paid. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

 

[Ornery]

Public pension plans pay nothing into Social Security. No reason why we shouldn't have comparable choices. Privatization is chicken feed compared to what these double dippers can pull down. :frown:

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

But be careful about spouting the failure of SS. It is not failed<yet>. It needs some tooling, but to eliminate it or invest it in risky schemes is not good for those retirees who make a paltry $800/mo (which is much more normal than that $1500 someone spouted off about) and cuts in benifits?-----Hell, they can't even make it on the $800/mo.

And what about health care? Only the rich can afford it without some assistance. Health care is totally out of control, and no one in congress or in the white house as done a damn thing about that. I suspect too many payoffs by freakin health care lobbiests going into campaign coffers. Talk about a spiral!

Normal for those who toil away in a cracker factory for 50 years perhaps. For those of us who have actually made intelligent choices throughout our lives it is far less common.

And there is no need to repost al gore campaign speeches. A link to algore04.com would suffice.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Private investment is for private savings. Social security is guaranteed funds.

Guaranteed by who????? Congress could change the laws regarding Social Security tomorrow, heck revoke it even. There's absolutely NO guarantee with social security whatsoever, apart from the promise of a politician. And if you believe that, i have a bridge i'd like to sell you with your social security money.

I'm against privatizing SS. You know why? Because, if given control of their SS funds, a large percentage of people will lose most their money.

Let me make you a proposition. If you give me $200 now and every month for the rest of your life, i'll promise to pay you $1,000 a month once you turn 65. That is, if i don't change my mind before then, which there's absolutely nothing stopping me from doing since we don't have a contract, this is just an informal agreement. And oh yeah, if you die before then, tough luck, i'm keeping your money, your next-of-kin won't get a penny of it.

Or, you can keep that money, and invest it in whatever you like. No matter what, it's yours to keep, use, you own it. You can pass it down to your heirs. Of course, there's no "guaranteed return" like what i'm offering you, but hey, that's how the ball bounces.

Does that sound like an arrangement you'd agree to? Because with the current state of social security, that's exactly what it is.

Do you really believe that individuals will be given true control over their "accounts" if SS were to be privatized? That we'd actually be able to invest it as we see fit and pass on any residual vested balance to our heirs after death? Don't be naive. That will NEVER happen. NEVER. If only because SS is a pyramid scheme and the "funds" in your "account" do not actually exist, so there are no funds for you to directly control nor would there ever be any funds for you to pass down to heirs.
And please try reading to the end of posts, please. I called for THE END of Social Security, as I have in the past. I also want my money back, but hey, as that money doesn't actually exist except on paper in SS's pyramid scheme and paying it all out would bankrupt the government and destroy the economy, I'd honestly be satisfied if it all just disappeared and I never had to pay into it anymore. Of course, that will never happen either.
"Privatizing" is a scam, albeit a very attractive one. Obviously, it's very easy for otherwise-intelligent people to fall into the trap of believing that it would be just like a 401(k) or similar retirement plan. The crucial (and obviously overlooked) difference between them is that most retirement plans are vested and fully funded (by law), whereas SS is NOT. Once again, there will be no "account" for you to individually manage because the money does not exist.
What privatizing SS will do is: (1) enrich the major brokerages on the street by giving them more fee income than they ever dreamed of (for the initial start-up costs) and (2) give the government near absolute control of the stock market, using the substantial amount that actually does exist of our SS funds.
As I believe the government should have less, and not more, control of the market, neither of which is something I can support.

edit: and that's just the beginning. I don't even want to get started on how the market can be so easily manipulated and how those funds can be raided in so many different ways, of which the nanny-staters will cry out that we'll all have to pay it back, etc. A lot of you people here are advocating for something you do not understand and comparing apples to oranges as well.

 

[yakko]

I would like and to opt out of it. I will take care of myself.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Many Federal workers have wonderful retirement accounts and pay zip into SS. PSYWVic & SuperTool, care to explain to me why the rest of us shouldn't have the same option?

Sounds like a great idea, where can I sign up? Too bad such a thing will never exist for us normal folks (i.e. those of us not feeding at the trough) until SS doesn't exist anymore. Until then, privatization is just another scam. So please DO NOT put words in my mouth or put meanings into my posts opposite of my stated opinion, thank you very much.

 

[Moonbeam]

Social security payments should begin at birth. No free services, you have to pay for everything. Upon death everything you own goes to the government. Massive tracts should be devoted to subsistence living so dead beats, artists , dreamers, hedonists, the self absorbed, the devotionally religious, the witless, and all other types who have no use for the rat race world we have created can live cheep, grow food, find minimal housing, clean water, and the simple basics of life so as to make their GOV payments suffice for a basic standard of living. So many people who live in fear as where their next meal is going to be, where they are going to sleep, or if they can make it one more day doing something they hate would be so much more happy. Our lifestyle is suitable for only a slice of our population.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Social security payments should begin at birth. No free services, you have to pay for everything. Upon death everything you own goes to the government. Massive tracts should be devoted to subsistence living so dead beats, artists , dreamers, hedonists, the self absorbed, the devotionally religious, the witless, and all other types who have no use for the rat race world we have created can live cheep, grow food, find minimal housing, clean water, and the simple basics of life so as to make their GOV payments suffice for a basic standard of living. So many people who live in fear as where their next meal is going to be, where they are going to sleep, or if they can make it one more day doing something they hate would be so much more happy. Our lifestyle is suitable for only a slice of our population.

At first I was going to post about how naive, clueless, and just about outright stupid this post is... even go into great detail about how economically impossible what it proposes would be. How contrary to human nature it is. How robbed that I, as a hard-working fit adult who has taken the chance and bet everything to put food on my own table, would feel if I had to give the rewards of all my risks and labors to those who had never even tried. How everyone else like me (on the whipped backs of whom your "economy" would survive) would feel the same way, enslaved to chickensh!ts and losers.
But then I thought, no, I will just let it stand by itself. A reminder (if you will) of the sentiments and hatreds of those who decided that our charity was not good enough and so require our enslavement, from "cradle to grave."