Social Security Privitization

[RobCur]

Originally posted by: chrisms
Social Security is like a dirty band-aid on an infected wound that nobody has had the guts to rip off yet.

How about just BAN SOCIAL SECURITY and take it out of my ass instead? lol or from income taxes, sales tax, etc.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

There IS some truth to what you say, but do you seriously believe that professional investment firms will do WORSE for you than the Federal Government has done?

Jason

Originally posted by: kranky
I suspect nothing will change with your paycheck and the same amount of money will be taken out. But you will be permitted to specify where some of that money is invested. You won't be getting a check.

I know a lot of people want to have privatized SS, but we need to fear for the vast numbers of people who won't have a clue what to do with their money. They'll be fodder for every investment firm out there.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

There's no reason why ANYONE should get screwed, actually. Just let those who are already in the system stay there, those in the middle choose to move to the new system or stay in the old, and those who are still young, say 30 and under, they automatically get switched. No NEW enrollments for the old system allowed, and we can manage to make it last for the next 20-30 years while the retired generation grows old and dies.

It's not really all that complicated, it's just that we like big, flashy headlines that scream "SOMEONE'S GONNA GET SCREWED!!!"

Jason

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
It sounds great and all, but it doesnt explain how we are going to survive the retirement of the baby-boomers.

No matter how you cut it one generation is going to get screwed when the change happens.

The problem right now is that the generation that stands to get screwed votes at a MUCH higher rate than those that stand to benefit.

The short answer?

Don't hold your breath.

Viper GTS

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: RobCur

Originally posted by: Jadow
I have over $100 per check taken out for Social Security, and I get paid twice per month. I KNOW if I'd have that additional $200 per month to invest in my 401k, I would be FAR better off in 35 years than I will be with it getting sunk into Social Security.

I really don't feel that it's fair that I have to pay for the retirements of other people, especially foolish people who don't save for retirement themselves and solely rely on social security.

That being said, if Bush changes social security so that I can invest any percentage of it in the market, say in an S&P 500 fund, or other blended fund where I could make 8-10% annually, I would be extremely greatful.

I hate Social Security and with the system would just go away, I'd gladly just give away the last 10+ years of contributions I've made to it, if that means I can go the next 35 years without it. But that will never happen.

you live in a fantasy world, yea right! You are a either broker or a specialist, brainwashing people, clever. it doesn't work on me cuz i'm not stupid or ignorant like most are.
HAVE A NICE DAY.

I don't see why you reacted so violently to what he said. I put his numbers into a 410k account balance calculator. He'd have $477,000 in 35 years. That's with $200 a month, earning an average of 8% over 35 years. That's not bad. Even going more conservative at only 6% (which is fairly conservative and allows for less then stellar performing investments) he would have $300,000. Not bad for such a modest savings. It could definately work as a safety net.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Except, I pay $242/mo. I read a financial planning book that said you get about a 2% return on your SS contributions. A HORRIBLE investment! If we could take half of that, and put it in a meager and safe 5% mutual fund, we'd be doing much better for ourselves.

Oh wait. We're supposed to deny our own wealth so we can pay for others. :roll:

That's 2% if you will start collecting in the next 10 years or so. If you're younger (and I think you said you're in your 20's or something, Rob), the pot will be so dry by the time you retire, your return will likely be in the negative percentages. Of course, that's just educated speculation at this point, but the trends don't look good, and the majority of baby boomers have yet to start drawing SS payments.

Oh, I agree! I don't expect to receive a dime. But I have to keep paying for a failed system, because it was promised to those who have already paid in. Well, at some point, they're going to have to tell people who paid in, that they don't get anything in return.

The people who have paid in are the fools that made the promise to them selfs. I personal wouldn't feel that bad about killing SS except for the poorest of people. Not only did the current generation promise my generations money to them selves the raid the trust fund to spend on other stuff instead of saving money.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
There's no reason why ANYONE should get screwed, actually. Just let those who are already in the system stay there, those in the middle choose to move to the new system or stay in the old, and those who are still young, say 30 and under, they automatically get switched. No NEW enrollments for the old system allowed, and we can manage to make it last for the next 20-30 years while the retired generation grows old and dies.

It's not really all that complicated, it's just that we like big, flashy headlines that scream "SOMEONE'S GONNA GET SCREWED!!!"

Jason

That might've been plausible before our government went on a 4 year demented shopping spree of special interest pandering and free money for everyone.

I'm sure you know that SS is a program that pays for itself in teh present; you're old, I pay your SS, I get old, my kid pays my SS and so forth. When the program was first developed there were something along the lines of 40 taxpayers for every SS recipient. The figures look nothing like that now. When this greedy old fart boomer generation starts to retire they will collect SS at levels magnitiudes greater than what we're facing now. Think you're paying alost for SS? Think again. It's going to get alot worse before it gets better.

Judging by the fiscal habits of our present government, it may very well turn out that they don't raise our "premiums" that much in the present and simply dip into the magical money pot called the FED to feed the beast. Super, so maybe that means we can avoid the big economic debacle of everyone having to pay MUCH more into SS monthly. Only problem is we won't be able to keep inflation at bay any longer and the doller's going to fall like a ton of bricks through a glas house. What then? Take solace in the fact that in 20 or 30 more years you can collect on your privitized SS acount? Great, hope you make it that long. Most won't.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: Jadow
I have over $100 per check taken out for Social Security, and I get paid twice per month. I KNOW if I'd have that additional $200 per month to invest in my 401k, I would be FAR better off in 35 years than I will be with it getting sunk into Social Security.

I really don't feel that it's fair that I have to pay for the retirements of other people, especially foolish people who don't save for retirement themselves and solely rely on social security.

That being said, if Bush changes social security so that I can invest any percentage of it in the market, say in an S&P 500 fund, or other blended fund where I could make 8-10% annually, I would be extremely greatful.

I hate Social Security and with the system would just go away, I'd gladly just give away the last 10+ years of contributions I've made to it, if that means I can go the next 35 years without it. But that will never happen.

Very good post. Summarized my thoughts exactly. Except, I pay $242/mo. I read a financial planning book that said you get about a 2% return on your SS contributions. A HORRIBLE investment! If we could take half of that, and put it in a meager and safe 5% mutual fund, we'd be doing much better for ourselves.

Oh wait. We're supposed to deny our own wealth so we can pay for others. :roll:

I agree.

I want the change to happen. I would love to pick and choose where to put some of that money.

 

[StageLeft]

It's a good idea. Ultimately it would mean more return on your dollar. As long as a check is put in to cover the morons, since most people ARE morons and don't know sh*t about investing (just look at the average net worth, credit card debt, etc. of grown adults - it's pathetic), then it's a great way to see better returns on the money we're all forced to pay.

 

[Engineer]

I still would love to invest my money my way. I do care, however how we can take care of the people in the system already. I guess it's like a business getting ready to let several thousand people go...they take a short term charge to try to get better in the long run.

Oh, and I think I'll not pay into SS anymore.......because I've maxed the darn thing out this year anyway! :Q

<---- Getting all of the overtime he can before the Bushmeister outlaws it! :Q

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Engineer
I still would love to invest my money my way. I do care, however how we can take care of the people in the system already. I guess it's like a business getting ready to let several thousand people go...they take a short term charge to try to get better in the long run.

Oh, and I think I'll not pay into SS anymore.......because I've maxed the darn thing out this year anyway! :Q

<---- Getting all of the overtime he can before the Bushmeister outlaws it! :Q

The lack of exposure the OT laws got was just mind blowing...

 

[Genx87]

This is going to be one hell of a problem for Bush and congress to tackle. But if they dont it will bankrupt us to the point of having to pay multiples of our paycheck to pay for it.

I am for scrapping the entire system. Letting people use privatised accounts. If you need the help make it like Welfare where you have to qualify. Honestly the thing was more or less a scam to begin with. They made the age higher than what most people would have lived to back in the 1930s. Now people live well past it and unsurprisingly it cant pay for itself.

What to do about the old people who expect this? They will have to raise the age to 70 or higher. The tidal wave is coming. We either move to higher ground or get rolled. Deal with it while we still have some time.

I have heard near 2030 they will require 70% federal income tax rates to pay for it. Ill simply move out of the country. I am not going to work hard to have 70 cents of every buck I make taken out to pay for a bad program.

 

[digiram]

Thanks for bring this up. I am very interested on how this would possibly come about, and how it would be implemented. Would this mean that the ss tax that we pay every paid check would be eliminated and replaced by a system that allow's us to invest the money ourselves?? I think that's a great idea, but heard that the amount of retiree vs worker's is much higher. How would this work w/o causing damage to the elderly in our country?? Maybe they can cut the our ss tax rates in 1/2 to pay for the current retiree, and the other 1/2 goes to some sort of mutal fund. Or, how about progressively decreasing the rates, starting with like 80% to 20% to ss, and so on??