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

[Tom]

Just because it has never happened doesn't mean there isn't an issue. SS very clearly needs to be fixed because currently by the time I retire I will either:
A) Live to or past my life expectency and get paid less than I put in (Break even is 1.5 years prior to life epxectancy)
B) Die early and get more than I put in

But the general opinion of older people seems to be that it is fine because they get more than they put in. How old are you again?

The point isn't getting back more than you put in. You might or might not, but that's true of any insurance policy or private annuity too.

So that's no basis for being against SS. btw, you could become disabled tomorrow and get back way more than you put in.

 

[ShawnD1]

You seem to have no idea on how investments work, but here is a clue... It would be your money, and your survivor's money in your death.

Maybe he's talking about some retarded whole life insurance policy. You die, your lifetime annuity magically disappears!


Yes I know that could happen to any annuity. My pension is an annuity, but my stock portfolio is not an annuity and it never will be.

 

[Exterous]

I don't understand why you would want to push back the retirement age closer to the life expectancy age. One of the main ideas for people retiring is to open up jobs for younger employees. Also, people should be able to retire at a point in their lives where they can still do things and enjoy their retirement years instead of working right up till the day they die.

Besides that, a lot of people here object to paying everyone a livable wage. How are people supposed to save for retirement when they can't can't even make a living now?

Perhaps this is a matter of differing views on the role of SS. I do not see it as a complete method of retirement. I see it as a supplemental or fall back fund. I believe this is where a big part of the issue lies. People are treating SS as their one and only retirement fund. I believe this is short sighted and suprisingly selfish way of shoving the burden of your retirement onto your very own children. (Which I cannot understand why a parent would be willing to do this).

If you get to the point where you are unable to work due to health issues you would then be covered by the disability part.

If you want to view is as your one and only retirement method fine - but be prepared to retire at a later age. If you want to retire earlier - save your money.

I do not buy the fact that people cannot save money now as a result of wage issues. I, by no means, live in a well off area or in a hopping job market. We still have a large amount of student loans. My wife is a young teacher - has been laid off several times and is now paying for her continuing education credits and will have to start taking even more credits shortly. I also have lost my job in the last 3 years and certainly don't make that much money. Yet for some reason we have been able to save for a house and put 8% of our annual salary away for retirement. (Some years it has benn more, some less)This is in addition to the 8 month 'we both got laid off and have 0 income (not even including unemployment) fund'. Take this viewpoint the way you may but I believe - on an individual level - that people are "unable" to save for retirement due largley to decisions they have made

Furthermore there is not an issue with older people holding on to jobs. Quite the opposite in fact. We will need significant immigration numbers to fill the workforce as the retirement rates increase

The point isn't getting back more than you put in. You might or might not, but that's true of any insurance policy or private annuity too.

So that's no basis for being against SS. btw, you could become disabled tomorrow and get back way more than you put in.

What is the point of insurance or private annuity? To get the amount of money promised you by the policy over the time period of the policy right? Currently the policy promises me an amount that it cannot fulfill. Am I to hope that something unexpected comes along to fix that? Or do I want to take pro-active steps to assure that what is promised to me will be there? I am willing to take a change in the promise under the understanding that it is a valid gaurantee and the funds promised to me will be there when and if I need them. Why would I go with a policy that actively tells me it can't pay what it is promising?

If it is a single individual that is not getting more than they put in or getting way more than they put in I am fine with that. (Obviously there are people who will die early/late and get disabled who fall largely on one side or the other) When you start telling entire generations that they will not get more than they put in because the generations before them got way more than they put it I have a problem with it

 

[nobodyknows]

The point isn't getting back more than you put in. You might or might not, but that's true of any insurance policy or private annuity too.

So that's no basis for being against SS. btw, you could become disabled tomorrow and get back way more than you put in.

Not to mention the fact that there are now IRA's, 401k's, and many other vehicles for people to stick away money to grow tax free until they retire. Those weren't available3 to9 many still working until fairly recently.

 

[ShawnD1]

Perhaps this is a matter of differing views on the role of SS. I do not see it as a complete method of retirement. I see it as a supplemental or fall back fund.

That's what it is supposed to be. It was to fill the gap when people are too old to work but not old enough to be dead. During that period of involuntary unemployment, it was easy to become poor and homeless.

Pretty much all government assistance works like that. Welfare is not there to make sure you are comfortable. It's to prevent you from being homeless and begging for food on the street. In general, that has been fairly successful. You see the odd panhandler downtown but it's not really a big problem. SS and welfare have all virtually eliminated extreme poverty that existed in the past. There's still poverty, but it's nothing like the past.

Not to mention the fact that there are now IRA's, 401k's, and many other vehicles for people to stick away money to grow tax free until they retire. Those weren't available3 to9 many still working until fairly recently.

Completely different culture. Fitty years ago, you couldn't save money because your wife had to stay home to take care of your twelve kids. When you got old, you would live with your kids. You didn't need to save for retirement because your kids would take care of you. If you didn't have kids.... you were fucked... and that's part of why social security exists.

The only reason we need to save for retirement is because modern people want independence. Rather than having their son or daughter take over the house and its expenses, old people want to keep their own house and have their kids move the hell out. It's no longer culturally acceptable to have your parents move into your house. If my wife wanted her parents to live in my house, I would say no.