Why should people be given a choice on SS ?

[polm]

I don't get this whole argument that the American People deserve to choose whether they want their SS money to be put into risky investments.

If these people's investments fail, and they have NO money to fall back on, then who in the world is going to have to take care of them ?

I'm thinking that those with no SS money will have to be supported by the rest of the nation. We can't just have a bunch of broke old people walking around sick and homeless...can we ?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Because it's their money and their retirement?

CsG

 

[Mursilis]

Why should alcohol be legal? Some people might become addicted and cease to support themselves! They might drive, and kill other people! Alcohol must be banned!

Why should people be allowed to eat fatty foods? They might become fat and sick, and then who would take care of them? No more Twinkies!

OK, enough sarcasm . . . either people are smart enough to run their own lives, and they should have the maximum freedoms possible, or they're basically just larger children, and the gov't, as the societal mommy and daddy, should be able to control their lives - where their money goes, what books they can read, what TV they can watch, etc. Which is it?

 

[Genx87]

I'm thinking that those with no SS money will have to be supported by the rest of the nation. We can't just have a bunch of broke old people walking around sick and homeless...can we ?

So what is the difference then?

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Because it's their money and their retirement?

CsG

But I'm concerned most with the burden left on society when the investments fail.

How will we support all of the people whos investments fail ?

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Why should alcohol be legal? Some people might become addicted and cease to support themselves! They might drive, and kill other people! Alcohol must be banned!

Why should people be allowed to eat fatty foods? They might become fat and sick, and then who would take care of them? No more Twinkies!

OK, enough sarcasm . . . either people are smart enough to run their own lives, and they should have the maximum freedoms possible, or they're basically just larger children, and the gov't, as the societal mommy and daddy, should be able to control their lives - where their money goes, what books they can read, what TV they can watch, etc. Which is it?

fair enough. I'm just worried that I will have to pay for the investment mistakes of others.

 

[Genx87]

But I'm concerned most with the burden left on society when the investments fail.

How will we support all of the people whos investments fail ?

If the funds fail then chances are the U.S. govt is non-existent. You wont be getting money from either system. Now the question you have to really ask is. How much do I want to implode this nation by not changing an entitlement programs designed 70 years ago?

btw Greenspan had a great quote yesterday about SS. Ill adhoc it here. The SS system is setup so politicians can claim to put it into a lockbox. But in the past they have opened that lockbox and taken money out of it. The only way to ensure politicians cant change their minds and open the lockbox is to put the money into a lockbox with your name on it.

Basically right now the lockbox has an address of U.S. congress and they own the key. When they want money they open it and leave us hanging. Change the address and key of the lockbox and they wont be able to steal from it anymore.

 

[polm]

Originally posted by: Genx87

But I'm concerned most with the burden left on society when the investments fail.

How will we support all of the people whos investments fail ?

If the funds fail then chances are the U.S. govt is non-existent.

seriously ? The investments are that guaranteed to succeed ?

 

[Genx87]

seriously ? The investments are that guaranteed to succeed ?

You missed the point. The point is if these funds fail then our financial systems collapsed. If the financial system collapsed chances are it is is because the govt ceased to exist.

Either way you wont get money. SS right now is risky. The govt could just cease to exist tomorrow and you would never get the money. The govt could just decide to cut your benefits tomorrow and you wont get your money. The govt could just close the entire process down and you wont get your money.

 

[polm]

Honestly, I am not trying to argue for or against the reforms. I'm just trying to understand.

I've always thought of SS as an insurance policy that meant that even if a person had NO retirement savings they would have a little bit of money set aside in a secure place that made sure they at least had enough to survive.

 

[mordantmonkey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
btw Greenspan had a great quote yesterday about SS. Ill adhoc it here. The SS system is setup so politicians can claim to put it into a lockbox. But in the past they have opened that lockbox and taken money out of it. The only way to ensure politicians cant change their minds and open the lockbox is to put the money into a lockbox with your name on it.

Basically right now the lockbox has an address of U.S. congress and they own the key. When they want money they open it and leave us hanging. Change the address and key of the lockbox and they wont be able to steal from it anymore.

Yeah this is a problem, why not pass legislation (not necessarily through congress) to keep congress' hands of the money? much simpler and cheaper. and what the hell is congress going to do about paying back all of that money they've already borrowed? That seems more of a crisis to me. We (you and me) are going to have to start paying that crap back.

and all that mentioning of lockbox made me laugh and think of Gore. oh al.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: polm
Honestly, I am not trying to argue for or against the reforms. I'm just trying to understand.

I've always thought of SS as an insurance policy that meant that even if a person had NO retirement savings they would have a little bit of money set aside in a secure place that made sure they at least had enough to survive.

It is considered an insurance policy but your return is horrible and it costs a lot of money to keep up. The money isnt secure and the congress steals from it yearly.

The money given out every year is just a tab above the poverty line and when they cut the benefits for my generation it will put them below the poverty line. All the while it will cost this country trillions.

SS needs to be fixed. Medicare also needs to be fixed.

 

[Genx87]

Yeah this is a problem, why not pass legislation (not necessarily through congress) to keep congress' hands of the money? much simpler and cheaper. and what the hell is congress going to do about paying back all of that money they've already borrowed? That seems more of a crisis to me. We (you and me) are going to have to start paying that crap back.

and all that mentioning of lockbox made me laugh and think of Gore. oh al

Asking congress to regulate itself? Good luck. Even if they mananged to do the impossible the demographics still wont make SS viable for the long term.

My conspiracy theory is SS was another tax disguised as a social entitlement. They set the age at the avg lifespan of the era knowing full well 50% of the people will never collect.

Maybe in the spirit of the original writers we should raise the age to 78.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: Genx87

But I'm concerned most with the burden left on society when the investments fail.

How will we support all of the people whos investments fail ?

If the funds fail then chances are the U.S. govt is non-existent.

seriously ? The investments are that guaranteed to succeed ?

Like GM tanking today, that's supposed to be an American "Bellwether", actually the top banana right?

So if folks invested on GM and it tanks like Enron, Worldcom etc that is the people's fault right???

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Because it's their money and their retirement?

CsG

But I'm concerned most with the burden left on society when the investments fail.

How will we support all of the people whos investments fail ?

SS is not to be one's only retirement. It was never intended to be solely relied upon. But to calm your bleeding heart - the investments made for these personal accounts will be regulated. It's not like you'll be able to speculate with it.
Also, I'd like to point out that the current SS system has no assets backing it's "IOUs" so the same question can be asked - what if the gov't fails to repay those fake IOUs because they've already spent the money?

CsG

 

[mordantmonkey]

yeah the real problem is congress "borrowing" money from SS. How else do you think we've been running debts for so long. yeah it has pretty much become a tax in disguise. I'm waiting to see what happens we have to start paying our debts (to ourselves) back.
private accounts are just going to cost even more money(trillions) to implement. what the hell? is our deficit not high enough already?

If people want to invest retirement money in the stock market, then fine, who cares? you can do that right now. Oh that's right i guess it's harder for the rich to get tax breaks on those investments the way it is right now. I wonder if they will get rid of IRA's if they implement private accounts? i doubt it.

 

[smc13]

Originally posted by: polm

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Why should alcohol be legal? Some people might become addicted and cease to support themselves! They might drive, and kill other people! Alcohol must be banned!

Why should people be allowed to eat fatty foods? They might become fat and sick, and then who would take care of them? No more Twinkies!

OK, enough sarcasm . . . either people are smart enough to run their own lives, and they should have the maximum freedoms possible, or they're basically just larger children, and the gov't, as the societal mommy and daddy, should be able to control their lives - where their money goes, what books they can read, what TV they can watch, etc. Which is it?

fair enough. I'm just worried that I will have to pay for the investment mistakes of others.

Right now you are paying for the retirement of others. If we go to a private investment plan then at worse you will only be paying for the retirement of those that are poor investors.

 

[joshw10]

Maybe someone can figure this out, or knows the statistic:

What would your annual income have to be to get back the same amount that you put into SS, assuming you start collecting at 65 and die at 80?

 

[mordantmonkey]

Depends on how much money you have. If you end up well, you won't be collecting a lot of SS. But if things don't go so well, ie big medical debt, job loss, then you will probably be much closer to or more than what you put in.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Because it's their money and their retirement?

CsG

Winnar! :beer:

 

[ahurtt]

After reading the content of this thread up to the end so far, it seems to me that some people are under the illusion that the SS tax is an investment and that the government is "borrowing" the money when it has been upheld by the Supreme Court that it is not the case. It is a tax. And therefore nobody is entitled to get any of it back. So this leads me to my point that the problem is the government has been talking out of the other side of its mouth to the public making us think we were guaranteed to get that "investment" back. And if it is in fact a tax as the Supreme Court has said, then why is the SS program labeled as an "entitlement" program when in fact it is not? So there is some duplicity between what the American people were made to believe and what is actually fact. And now that it has surfaced that there will not be enough money going into the system to keep up the charade indefinitely, the government is going to be forced to stop stealing from us and come clean and tell the truth. Till now it has been a kind of "turn the other cheek" relationship between the system and the people. . .Us just saying "as long as the money is there when I need it, you just go about your business and we'll look the other way." Well it's time to take off the blinders, stop the theft, and correct the situation.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Because it's their money and their retirement?

CsG

Way to miss the point. If they screw up and loose everything, they are NOT going to be hung out to dry. We are going to have to support these people and how do you think we will do that, ah yes, with Social Security.

 

[Genx87]

Well it's time to take off the blinders, stop the theft, and correct the situation.

:beer:

 

[Genx87]

Way to miss the point. If they screw up and loose everything, they are NOT going to be hung out to dry. We are going to have to support these people and how do you think we will do that, ah yes, with Social Security.

have you ever looked at the federal thrift program?

When was the last time anybody lost everything when they participated in it?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Way to miss the point. If they screw up and loose everything, they are NOT going to be hung out to dry. We are going to have to support these people and how do you think we will do that, ah yes, with Social Security.

have you ever looked at the federal thrift program?

When was the last time anybody lost everything when they participated in it?

Does that answer the question as to how we are going to provide for the millions who choose to opt out that very may well loose everything they divested? I hardly doubt that as a civilized nation we are just going to say, tough crap. We will have to allow them to draw more than they paid in since what they paid in won't be enought to live on should the worst happen and they loose every thing.