So, why wouldn't privatizing SS work in the US? Works in Chile.

[Engineer]

Those evil motherfuckers.

I laughed.

 

[ShawnD1]

Having unlimited choices in retirement isn't a good idea because many people have no clue. That doesn't mean there couldn't be plans to choose from which were highly regulated and under substantial scrutiny. The problem is there isn't any money to manage. The feds spent it all already.

When SS no longer pays for itself, the money must come out of general tax revenue. It's just like any other expense. Roads come from general revenue, the military, welfare, medicare, president having a million security guards following him around all the time, etc. SS will never go "bankrupt" but you can expect taxes to go up at some point to cover the costs. That's how everything works. They expand the military, taxes go up. They expand medicare, taxes go up. They expand welfare, tax goes up.

 

[shira]

If SS contributions would belong to the worker, where would the funding come from to pay existing retirees and not-yet-retired people who have already paid substantial amounts into SS? Somehow, this little detail is never addressed by those who think privatizing SS is a great idea.

Just pay us what we paid in. Oh wait, the government spent that on everything else.

And that's exactly the point. Those advocating privatization of SS can't ignore this inconvenient fact, as desperately as they wish to ignore it.

Until would-be privatizers describe a credible funding solution for those fully or partly vested in SS, advocating privatization of SS is just demagoguery.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Tell that to a Finance professor and prepare to be laughed out of the room.

That's funny because my major in college is Financial Economics.Most finance professors I've had didn't know shit. Social security is suppose to be exactly what it is, social insurance. It's not a 401k or an IRA, because that's exactly why 401k's and IRA's exist.

Prove to me why it isn't the most successful social program, genius.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And that's exactly the point. Those advocating privatization of SS can't ignore this inconvenient fact, as desperately as they wish to ignore it.

Until would-be privatizers describe a credible funding solution for those fully or partly vested in SS, advocating privatization of SS is just demagoguery.

Essentially the government stole the money and redistributed it elsewhere. If that were done by a private individual they'd be in jail. The government however is completely above any actual accountability. That is a real issue. Harvey's "who's watching over who's watching over you"- no one. They can do anything they like including stealing the SS funds. Of course that's done with some people's complete approval.

I don't like thieves.

 

[sMiLeYz]

What's your basis for that assertion?

Madoff's scheme worked for a while, too.

Uh, Social Security law. It has it's own budget, it's legally required to pay it's own way through it's own tax.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

ROFL, Madoff is a hedge fund manager the fact you think SS is similar makes you an idiot. Ironically if Bush privatized Social Security in 2005, Bear Stearns and Lehman brothers would have been in charge of those trillions.

 

[Infohawk]

A large segment of the population has no self-control. They're fat or they drink heavily or they spend too much money on cars. These people can't be trusted with their own bodies let alone their retirement.

 

[Craig234]

Some very unscrupulous hedge managers and money lenders destroyed the world economy. The study of finance is sound, but there are those who fuck the system to benefit themselves. That does not invalidate the field as a whole.

You really don't understand the boom/bust cycles in capitalism, the systemic corruption from the concentration of wealth, etc.

You aren't going to get the finance sector of the economy taking 40% of all profits without their doing bad things.

We could bring back the regulation, but how is money in politics doing lately?

 

[WHAMPOM]

I found this to be a pretty interesting article.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=570629



As a 33 year old person, I have no doubt that SS will not be there for me when I retire. Yet, I'm paying into it just like everyone else.

We need to adopt a new system so, why wouldn't this one work for us?

So are they gunna crash like Iceland and Ireland did?

 

[Zorkorist]

A large segment of the population has no self-control. They're fat or they drink heavily or they spend too much money on cars. These people can't be trusted with their own bodies let alone their retirement.

Yet, these people, if given a chance to fail, would be doing better than the approximately $50,000 they each now owe to satisfy our debt.

STOP IT. STOP IT ALREADY!

The only thing Government has done, is to spend us into ruin.

-John

 

[wuliheron]

Yet, these people, if given a chance to fail, would be doing better than the approximately $50,000 they each now owe to satisfy our debt.

STOP IT. STOP IT ALREADY!

The only thing Government has done, is to spend us into ruin.

-John

I didn't vote for the shits in office? Did you? Maybe we should do an online poll and see who really is voting for these assholes....

 

[Zorkorist]

Our Constitution, and Bill of Rights, have allowed for the Government to go so far over-board.

There's not much to be done, I am afraid.

-John

 

[Craig234]

Our Constitution, and Bill of Rights, have allowed for the Government to go so far over-board.

There's not much to be done, I am afraid.

-John

There's plenty to be done. Start with taking the money out of our political system that lets the few who have most of the wealth and power buy elections.

 

[Zorkorist]

As Mr-T might say, "I pity the kids."

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

There's plenty to be done. Start with taking the money out of our political system that lets the few who have most of the wealth and power buy elections.

That's unconstitutional.

-John

 

[shira]

Essentially the government stole the money and redistributed it elsewhere. If that were done by a private individual they'd be in jail. The government however is completely above any actual accountability. That is a real issue. Harvey's "who's watching over who's watching over you"- no one. They can do anything they like including stealing the SS funds. Of course that's done with some people's complete approval.

I don't like thieves.

This is complaint, not a solution. Would-be privatizers are just as caught up in unreality as those who chant "Don't touch my Social Security."

In a microcosm, this is the fundamental problem with the political dialogue in the United States: Far too many incredibly stupid people.

 

[Infohawk]

Yet, these people, if given a chance to fail, would be doing better than the approximately $50,000 they each now owe to satisfy our debt.

STOP IT. STOP IT ALREADY!

The only thing Government has done, is to spend us into ruin.

-John

A lot of Americans already have huge debts so no I don't think they'd be doing better.

If people were willing to let people who make bad decisions die on the street as a consequence of their bad decisions, then sure we wouldn't need to get involved. Maybe you would let them die, but most other Americans wouldn't. So in the end it's the government's responsibility to make sure these people don't die in a gutter from their own stupidity. Withholding a small portion of their pay and not letting them access it until they are old seems like a good way from protecting the rest of us from their stupidity.

 

[Craig234]

That's unconstitutional.

-John

Not actually, but since a majority of Supreme Court Justices who ruled said corporations are people and such, we should pass a constitutional amendment changing that.

 

[dawp]

Not actually, but since a majority of Supreme Court Justices who ruled said corporations are people and such, we should pass a constitutional amendment changing that.

The initial ruling may never have been according to several things I've read, it was a preface statement offered by the Chief Justice at the time:

When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.

Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published "headnotes." (Davis had already had a long career in public service, and at one point was president of the board of directors for the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company.) In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment--which would ordinarily never see print--in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2469/how-can-a-corporation-be-legally-considered-a-person

 

[trenchfoot]

IMO, the interested parties - Wall Street - who stand to make so many billions off this, by adding massive overhead draining money, will understate the downsides.

And proponents for Social Security will understate the benefits, of which there are some.

But on balance, I'm fine with not having this massive program Republicans want to destroy for reasons as bad as not wanting the Democrats to get political credit, turn into a privatized program fueling the Wall Street machine far more, enriching the interests who already dominate our political system far too much, which will lead to an even GREATER weakening of democracy and empowering Wall Street to screw the people.

But I do want to see the government stop borrowing the 'trust fund'.

So true this.

Bottom line is that the stronger the government is, the more it is able to protect the middle class and poor from the very rich who would like nothing better than to deregulate themselves into even higher obscene profits at the expense of the health and welfare of the general public. Big Business wants to take over every beneficial social program the government controls in order to enrich themselves even further.

Big business has no compassion, no morality, no concern for the financial security of the citizenry. All that drives Big Business is sheer unadulterated overwhelming greed. Just look at what Big Business did to our country when Bush and Cheney let them get away with whatever they wanted to do.

 

[dawp]

So true this.

Bottom line is that the stronger the government is, the more it is able to protect the middle class and poor from the very rich who would like nothing better than to deregulate themselves into even higher obscene profits at the expense of the health and welfare of the general public. Big Business wants to take over every beneficial social program the government controls in order to enrich themselves even further.

Big business has no compassion, no morality, no concern for the financial security of the citizenry. All that drives Big Business is sheer unadulterated overwhelming greed. Just look at what Big Business did to our country when Bush and Cheney let them get away with whatever they wanted to do.

That comes with a cravat that is true as long as big business doesn't buy out the strong government and impose it views on the country. As long as it takes a shitload of cash to get elected to a federal office, the politicians will be compromised.

 

[Anarchist420]

There's plenty to be done. Start with taking the money out of our political system that lets the few who have most of the wealth and power buy elections.

The fairest solution is to reduce the enumerated powers by reinstating the Articles of Confederation. The problem is the size and the number of enumerated powers that the Constitution gives the government to help corporations,

No MIC, no Wall Street being able to use the government, what the hell is wrong with that?

 

[Anarchist420]

When SS no longer pays for itself, the money must come out of general tax revenue. It's just like any other expense. Roads come from general revenue, the military, welfare, medicare, president having a million security guards following him around all the time, etc. SS will never go "bankrupt" but you can expect taxes to go up at some point to cover the costs. That's how everything works. They expand the military, taxes go up. They expand medicare, taxes go up. They expand welfare, tax goes up.

Taxes can't be raised any further.

 

[matt0611]

I'd love to see some kind of transition to a private system that you could potentially opt-out of if you so choose.

This forced government run retirement insurance is crap and I don't want it and don't want to pay 12% of my salary into it any longer.

Privatization is a great idea IMO.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

The fairest solution is to reduce the enumerated powers by reinstating the Articles of Confederation. The problem is the size and the number of enumerated powers that the Constitution gives the government to help corporations,

No MIC, no Wall Street being able to use the government, what the hell is wrong with that?

"Reinstating the articles of confederation"? I suppose you don't know American history to understand (or fully accept) why the AoC was ditched to begin with.