Saving Social Security by privitization on the back end rather than the front?

[glenn1]

How about this for an idea on how to shore up Social Security? Most conservatives seem to agree that privatization is the way to go, the liberals seem to agree that the program needs the guaranteed payment stream from current workers. So why not instead of privatizing it on the front end (creating private savings accounts), create a de facto privitization on the back end?

Basically, someone pays into the Social Security program as normal until retirement age. Then, we give them a choice. They can either receive SS payments as normal, or they can forgo SS payments in return for receiving a lowered tax rate on capital gains, dividend income, and/or otherwise taxable IRA and 401k distributions? Essentially, the government loses the liability of the SS obligation in trade for the lower tax take on the eligible recipients own private assets going forward. The individual loses the income stream from SS, but gains the more certain income stream from his own investments being taxed at a lower rate.

 

[mfs378]

If you did that, people would only go for it if they saved more money from tax breaks than they would take in from SS. Therefore, the government would be losing more money. Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: mfs378
If you did that, people would only go for it if they saved more money from tax breaks than they would take in from SS. Therefore, the government would be losing more money. Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem.

The real problem is that the goverment spends every dollar it gets its hands on. That is why private accounts are needed.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

How about this: Stop Social Security in its entirety, pay people what they have paid in, and ask investment institutions to provide free or low cost education on Financial Planning for your Future to High School students, College Students and their parents?

Jason

 

[EagleKeeper]

At the age that SS can be collected, most people will retire and there have a lower tax liability anyhow.

If they know in advance that they can be taxed on certain income, they will find a way to defer that income into non-taxable items if the tax benifits are such.

The only way to fix the SS problem, is to increase the inflow and/or reduce the outflow. Either way will hurt some groups.
You can not trust the pols to do the job. They will pander for votes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: mfs378
If you did that, people would only go for it if they saved more money from tax breaks than they would take in from SS. Therefore, the government would be losing more money. Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem.

The real problem is that the goverment spends every dollar it gets its hands on. That is why private accounts are needed.

OR - that's why we need to make it a united means tested welfare system. Just make it part of the yearly budget like "normal". Making a unified Welfare system would save us million if not billions that gets gobbled up in the bureaucracy. One set of rules that people can understand and follow easily. One set of welfare rules makes it "fair" to anyone who needs to be a part of that system. No - it wouldn't be a "good" living - but it would be "basic" - thus providing some semblance of motivation to not be reliant on welfare. I don't buy this idea that the gov't "owes" people(old people) anything. I didn't create this mess, I still pay for this mess, I want to clean up this mess so we can actually have a system that works and will be around for those who actually need it.

Meh - SS, Medi-whatever, and other handout programs need a serious retooling - a total shift in administration and delivery.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

How about instead of that we make NO welfare system part of the plan, and that way your average family whose parents bust their asses to make ends meet don't have to pay to support Joe Blow down the street who wants to sit in his one bedroom Section-8 and smoke pot all day instead of getting a goddamn job? If you're going to talk about FAIRNESS, you can't talk about creating MORE welfare, because welfare ISN'T fair to those who are forced to pay the bills.

Jason

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
How about instead of that we make NO welfare system part of the plan, and that way your average family whose parents bust their asses to make ends meet don't have to pay to support Joe Blow down the street who wants to sit in his one bedroom Section-8 and smoke pot all day instead of getting a goddamn job? If you're going to talk about FAIRNESS, you can't talk about creating MORE welfare, because welfare ISN'T fair to those who are forced to pay the bills.

Jason

Remove all welfare with the exception of a mean-tested for disability (no commercial disability payments) & minor-dependants (parent passed on prior to completion of HS and/or college)

 

[mfs378]

Would no welfare include no unemployment benefits? Because there are plenty of people who live from paycheck to paycheck - not because they are lazy, or because they don't want to succeed, or because they feel like it. Would you have those people out on their asses if they lost their jobs and couldn't pay rent?

I don't know a thing about you, but if I had to guess, you probably didn't grow up in the ghetto. Am I right? If you want to talk about 'not fair,' where does the difference between a poor kid in a crime ridden neighborhood and a rich kid who has everything he could ask for come into play? In your unrelenting pursuit of fairness, how do you adress that discrepancy?

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: mfs378
Would no welfare include no unemployment benefits? Because there are plenty of people who live from paycheck to paycheck - not because they are lazy, or because they don't want to succeed, or because they feel like it. Would you have those people out on their asses if they lost their jobs and couldn't pay rent?

I don't know a thing about you, but if I had to guess, you probably didn't grow up in the ghetto. Am I right? If you want to talk about 'not fair,' where does the difference between a poor kid in a crime ridden neighborhood and a rich kid who has everything he could ask for come into play? In your unrelenting pursuit of fairness, how do you adress that discrepancy?

correct, no unemployment. if you know pink slips are being handed out and you could be a target, start looking for a replacement job. if you think theres a possibility you might be fired because you're fvcking up all the time, start looking for another job, so when you are fired, you're still working [or the intermission between jobs isn't as long].

a little prudence and foresight can go a long way. we need to stop being dependant on the government for so many trite little things and start being accountable for ourselves.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: mfs378
Would no welfare include no unemployment benefits? Because there are plenty of people who live from paycheck to paycheck - not because they are lazy, or because they don't want to succeed, or because they feel like it. Would you have those people out on their asses if they lost their jobs and couldn't pay rent?

I don't know a thing about you, but if I had to guess, you probably didn't grow up in the ghetto. Am I right? If you want to talk about 'not fair,' where does the difference between a poor kid in a crime ridden neighborhood and a rich kid who has everything he could ask for come into play? In your unrelenting pursuit of fairness, how do you adress that discrepancy?

Haha, well it's funny you ask that, because I actually lived in *many* different "ghetto-ish" areas growing up. My father was a disturbed Vietnam Vet, both parents were drug addicts. We moved frequently because my father couldn't keep a job or woudl get in fights with the landlord and we'd get evicted. When I was 8 we spent nearly a year homeless, living in my parents' van. I watched my father go into meltdown with Vietnam flashbacks and had the fun experience of being mistaken for a VC spy and held at gunpoint until my mother could talk him down. So yes, I have a *very* good understanding of poverty, and I know full well it sucks a giant donkey ass.

I probably would say keep Unemployment, because it's something like an Insurance policy you pay for, and it's got definite limits in most states. I'm not against helping those who *can't* help themselves (teh above examples of young people and mentally incapable would surely fall into that category) but as for those who are ABLE but WON'T help themselves? To hell with them, let nature take its' course.

Jason

 

[mfs378]

So you are in favor of a right to work system? Those who want work are garaunteed it?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Absolutely not. You have a right to earn a living, you do NOT have a right to a job. When you are thinking about rights, ask this question: Does someone else have to give this to me? If your answer is YES, you don't have a right to it. You have a right to earn a living (whether that's by finding a job or living "off the land" as some few still choose to do.) but not a right to a job, which someone else must provide.

Jason

 

[mfs378]

Ok, so if you are able to work, and you can't get a job, you get unemployment? How would you deal with a situation where people want to work but can't get jobs?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: mfs378
where does the difference between a poor kid in a crime ridden neighborhood and a rich kid who has everything he could ask for come into play? In your unrelenting pursuit of fairness, how do you adress that discrepancy?

Simple - They have the same opportunity to succeed as anyone else. Sure they may have more hurdles to clear - but that doesn't mean the opportunity isn't there. The only way you'd get rid of that so-called discrepancy would be to have everyone make the same amount of money no matter what job they have or don't do. But yeah, I guess that is the aim of atleast a few here on this board. The whole - "one world" BS.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't help those who can't help themselves(which I've stated forever) - I'm saying that those who WONT help themselves shouldn't get a free ride. Welfare isn't a way of life - just as SS wasn't supposed to be a way of life. We need to get back to that attitude, the gov't doesn't owe you a way of life - you owe it to yourself. If welfare can't sustain you - then you need to find a way out. Now obviously the devil is in the details, but means testing should be the first requirement for ANY gov't handout....or actually second - the first should be that you have to be a citizen of the USA.

CkG

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Your hypothetical is without validity in a free economy the size and scope of ours. There are *always* jobs available. You might not always get the one you *want*, but sometimes it's better to bite the bullet and make ends meet until the right opportunity comes along. You should get unemployment if you've worked and paid your "Premium" as it were while working, but not if you've never worked.

Jason

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: mfs378
Ok, so if you are able to work, and you can't get a job, you get unemployment? How would you deal with a situation where people want to work but can't get jobs?

"want to work" or "want to only work doing what they want to do"?

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Absolutely not. You have a right to earn a living, you do NOT have a right to a job. When you are thinking about rights, ask this question: Does someone else have to give this to me? If your answer is YES, you don't have a right to it. You have a right to earn a living (whether that's by finding a job or living "off the land" as some few still choose to do.) but not a right to a job, which someone else must provide.

Jason

How about the right to vote? The right of speedy and public trial by jury?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: mfs378
Would no welfare include no unemployment benefits? Because there are plenty of people who live from paycheck to paycheck - not because they are lazy, or because they don't want to succeed, or because they feel like it. Would you have those people out on their asses if they lost their jobs and couldn't pay rent?

I don't know a thing about you, but if I had to guess, you probably didn't grow up in the ghetto. Am I right? If you want to talk about 'not fair,' where does the difference between a poor kid in a crime ridden neighborhood and a rich kid who has everything he could ask for come into play? In your unrelenting pursuit of fairness, how do you adress that discrepancy?

Haha, well it's funny you ask that, because I actually lived in *many* different "ghetto-ish" areas growing up. My father was a disturbed Vietnam Vet, both parents were drug addicts. We moved frequently because my father couldn't keep a job or woudl get in fights with the landlord and we'd get evicted. When I was 8 we spent nearly a year homeless, living in my parents' van. I watched my father go into meltdown with Vietnam flashbacks and had the fun experience of being mistaken for a VC spy and held at gunpoint until my mother could talk him down. So yes, I have a *very* good understanding of poverty, and I know full well it sucks a giant donkey ass.

I probably would say keep Unemployment, because it's something like an Insurance policy you pay for, and it's got definite limits in most states. I'm not against helping those who *can't* help themselves (teh above examples of young people and mentally incapable would surely fall into that category) but as for those who are ABLE but WON'T help themselves? To hell with them, let nature take its' course.

Jason

Those people are usually housed and fed by our Prison system anyway!

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Oh, good post CAD.

Suffice to say I'm NOT in favor of the "make sure everyone has the same amount of money" thing, that is NOT fairness nor even smart. All it means is that everyone is equally broke and oppressed. That old phrase about "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is probably the most evil idea ever to be put into words.

Jason

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: mfs378
where does the difference between a poor kid in a crime ridden neighborhood and a rich kid who has everything he could ask for come into play? In your unrelenting pursuit of fairness, how do you adress that discrepancy?

Simple - They have the same opportunity to succeed as anyone else. Sure they may have more hurdles to clear - but that doesn't mean the opportunity isn't there. The only way you'd get rid of that so-called discrepancy would be to have everyone make the same amount of money no matter what job they have or don't do. But yeah, I guess that is the aim of atleast a few here on this board. The whole - "one world" BS.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't help those who can't help themselves(which I've stated forever) - I'm saying that those who WONT help themselves shouldn't get a free ride. Welfare isn't a way of life - just as SS wasn't supposed to be a way of life. We need to get back to that attitude, the gov't doesn't owe you a way of life - you owe it to yourself. If welfare can't sustain you - then you need to find a way out. Now obviously the devil is in the details, but means testing should be the first requirement for ANY gov't handout....or actually second - the first should be that you have to be a citizen of the USA.

CkG

Would you agree to increased funding for schools in poor neighborhoods and university scholarships for poor students?

[edit] And I was not advocating direct redistribution of wealth if thats what you are implying.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Absolutely not. You have a right to earn a living, you do NOT have a right to a job. When you are thinking about rights, ask this question: Does someone else have to give this to me? If your answer is YES, you don't have a right to it. You have a right to earn a living (whether that's by finding a job or living "off the land" as some few still choose to do.) but not a right to a job, which someone else must provide.

Jason

How about the right to vote? The right of speedy and public trial by jury?

Vote - given by the gov't
Trial - given by the gov't

Neither are "rights" - they are supposedly guarantees by the gov't.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Oh, good post CAD.

Suffice to say I'm NOT in favor of the "make sure everyone has the same amount of money" thing, that is NOT fairness nor even smart. All it means is that everyone is equally broke and oppressed. That old phrase about "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is probably the most evil idea ever to be put into words.

Jason

That little saying should be changed to - "From each according to his need, to each according to his ability" for me to agree with it.

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: mfs378
Ok, so if you are able to work, and you can't get a job, you get unemployment? How would you deal with a situation where people want to work but can't get jobs?

"want to work" or "want to only work doing what they want to do"?

CkG

I think it reasonable to have a period where people can have enough time to find a job and not have to default on their homes, etc. At some point, they may have to take a lower paying job, but at least they arent thrown to the wolves right away. Unemployment is not a permanent fix and I can't remember it ever being so.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: mfs378
where does the difference between a poor kid in a crime ridden neighborhood and a rich kid who has everything he could ask for come into play? In your unrelenting pursuit of fairness, how do you adress that discrepancy?

Simple - They have the same opportunity to succeed as anyone else. Sure they may have more hurdles to clear - but that doesn't mean the opportunity isn't there. The only way you'd get rid of that so-called discrepancy would be to have everyone make the same amount of money no matter what job they have or don't do. But yeah, I guess that is the aim of atleast a few here on this board. The whole - "one world" BS.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't help those who can't help themselves(which I've stated forever) - I'm saying that those who WONT help themselves shouldn't get a free ride. Welfare isn't a way of life - just as SS wasn't supposed to be a way of life. We need to get back to that attitude, the gov't doesn't owe you a way of life - you owe it to yourself. If welfare can't sustain you - then you need to find a way out. Now obviously the devil is in the details, but means testing should be the first requirement for ANY gov't handout....or actually second - the first should be that you have to be a citizen of the USA.

CkG

Would you agree to increased funding for schools in poor neighborhoods and university scholarships for poor students?

[edit] And I was not advocating direct redistribution of wealth if thats what you are implying.

hehe- Education eh? You want to know what my views are? Not many people will agree with me on my educational views, but I mainly chalk that up to "tradition" and the fear of a perceived change. I'll just say this, which kind of sums up my Education views, - Education is for learning and being taught. It is not about being human, it is about learning that which we(adults) say you need to learn. Reading - Writing - Arithmetic (and throw in science too). Our system is currently broken because we have lost focus.

But to answer your question - No I wouldn't. Ofcourse the "why" is in the details of my educational views. Someday you may read all of them - but not today and probably not here.

CkG