would having the govt mandate everyone setup an IRA work?

[BlahBlahYouToo]

SS is a scam IMO, a giant ponzi scheme.

would we be better off having everyone required by law to open an IRA and automatically depositing a percentage of our income into it? we would under no circumstances be allowed to withdraw from it until retirement age.

i prefer having the money i save go into my pocket, not another person's.

 

[her209]

You mean you want to mandate "the People" to buy a private product?

:awe:

 

[MotF Bane]

You mean you want to mandate "the People" to buy a private product?

:awe:

Well played.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

The problem with ponzi schemes is that they are very difficult to unwind. If we transitioned to a program like this it would end up costing you more because the government would still have to pay the baby boomers their social security and they haven't had time to build up these accounts. So you'd end up paying their retirement and yours at the same time. Thats why no one ever wants to end the scheme. Of course eventually the demographics come and bite you in the ass.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

You mean you want to mandate "the People" to buy a private product?

:awe:

we're being forced to pay into SS already so why not?

look, i'm not crazy about being treated like an irresponsible child that doesn't know how to save for my own retirement, but obviously the majority of americans are just that. if we're going to be requiring a portion of my paycheck to be deducted to pay for retirement, i'd rather it be towards my own.

 

[airdata]

Instead of mandating anything, how about offering people the option to opt out? I'd just assume not pay into SS and do my own savings in the off chance that I never get to collect SS.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Instead of mandating anything, how about offering people the option to opt out? I'd just assume not pay into SS and do my own savings in the off chance that I never get to collect SS.

i'd love that option myself, but everyone would opt out, have no savings at retirement age, and we'd be back in the business of bailing everyone out.

we know that the majority of people are idiots and have no sense of responsibility towards anything.

 

[Tom]

social security is not a Ponzi scheme, it's well funded as it is.

Here's the problem with switching to an IRA system. You aren't going to get a better return on average, all investments average out to whatever the actual growth rate is, just simple economics.

Some people will do better some will do worse, though. That doesn't serve the purpose of a retirement system well. especially a safety net.

 

[CPA]

SS is a scam IMO, a giant ponzi scheme.

would we be better off having everyone required by law to open an IRA and automatically depositing a percentage of our income into it? we would under no circumstances be allowed to withdraw from it until retirement age.

i prefer having the money i save go into my pocket, not another person's.

um, how about privatizing SS. Same thing, really.

 

[Jaskalas]

social security is not a Ponzi scheme, it's well funded as it is.

:whiste: Go on, tell us another joke.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Instead of mandating anything, how about offering people the option to opt out? I'd just assume not pay into SS and do my own savings in the off chance that I never get to collect SS.

What about the other things that the SS does - how are you going to handle those?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

um, how about privatizing SS. Same thing, really.

what would the differences be?
bottom line, i would like to manage my own retirement. i don't need to be hand held.

 

[matt0611]

social security is not a Ponzi scheme, it's well funded as it is.

...

LMAO

No, it really isnt.

Theres no real difference between SS as it exists now and how a ponzi scheme is set up.

 

[EagleKeeper]

what would the differences be?
bottom line, i would like to manage my own retirement. i don't need to be hand held.

Do you have a kid or wife?

What happens if you are hit by a bus this afternoon and no longer able to work?

 

[Aegeon]

LMAO

No, it really isnt.

Theres no real difference between SS as it exists now and how a ponzi scheme is set up.

This is of course indisputable nonsense if you're taking the topic seriously.

A Ponzi scheme not only ordinarily claims exceptional returns, (well beyond what social security actually grants) but crucially entirely relies on others continually voluntarily throwing more money into the scheme in the expectation of greater rewards. (With the scheme collapsing with it ordinarily being found the money was mostly used by the schemer instead.)

Social Security is not voluntary which makes it a radically different situation. Its also true the US can basically count on a greater population base to pay for it in the long run due to continued population growth, with the baby boomer situation mostly being a temporary complication. (Also a clearly different situation than a ponzi scheme will more investors will only work for so long.)

There are clearly several ways Social Security can be potentially effectively modified in the US to deal with any potential funding shortfall which would actually occur anytime soon. The basic funding situation is by no means really that severe.

 

[dullard]

bottom line, i would like to manage my own retirement. i don't need to be hand held.

Good, then you can get an IRA, HSA, 401k, SEP, Simple IRA, 403b, 408k, 401a, 412i, etc. Not to mention the Roth versions of many of the above. Or just open up an account somewhere and save as you want. In all of the above, you get to manage your own retirement.

Then as a small part of your retirement planning, you also get SS.


How about this: we'll take your SS away, but we'll also take your tax deductions/deferals for the items above away as well as preferred long term capital gains tax rates. Would you take that deal? It is, after all, getting rid of all hand-holding and government involvement.

 

[Tom]

LMAO

No, it really isnt.

Theres no real difference between SS as it exists now and how a ponzi scheme is set up.

It's impossible to discuss anything when you start from a foolish untrue position.

The fact is SS is very well funded. The problems aren't financial, they're political. With small adjustments and honest budgeting on OTHER areas of government, Social Security has no problems. At all.

 

[matt0611]

Good, then you can get an IRA, HSA, 401k, SEP, Simple IRA, 403b, 408k, 401a, 412i, etc. Not to mention the Roth versions of many of the above. Or just open up an account somewhere and save as you want. In all of the above, you get to manage your own retirement.

Then as a small part of your retirement planning, you also get SS.


How about this: we'll take your SS away, but we'll also take your tax deductions/deferals for the items above away as well as preferred long term capital gains tax rates. Would you take that deal? It is, after all, getting rid of all hand-holding and government involvement.

Or we can just allow people to save on their own with the tax breaks and opt-out of SS.
Why should I pay 15% of my income to a retirement program that I want no part of? Why not give people a choice?

 

[matt0611]

It's impossible to discuss anything when you start from a foolish untrue position.

The fact is SS is very well funded. The problems aren't financial, they're political. With small adjustments and honest budgeting on OTHER areas of government, Social Security has no problems. At all.

It relies on an inflow of taxes from peoples pay checks to pay current retirees. As of now its running in the red. So yes, there is financial problems. Can they be fixed? of course they can. As of now they are not fixed though, thats my point. It is NOT well funded currently.

 

[Anarchist420]

Centralized planning never works, the OP's idea is stupid.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

social security is not a Ponzi scheme, it's well funded as it is.

Here's the problem with switching to an IRA system. You aren't going to get a better return on average, all investments average out to whatever the actual growth rate is, just simple economics.

Some people will do better some will do worse, though. That doesn't serve the purpose of a retirement system well. especially a safety net.

The economics may be simple but your conclusions are wrong. While a company can't grow faster then the economy in the long run your return as an investor can be higher due to dividend reinvestment. If everyone got the market return in the long run they would be getting a far higher return than in SS.

 

[bamacre]

social security is not a Ponzi scheme, it's well funded as it is.

It is? :\

 

[dullard]

Or we can just allow people to save on their own with the tax breaks and opt-out of SS.
Why should I pay 15% of my income to a retirement program that I want no part of? Why not give people a choice?

Why should I pay 17% of my income to help pay for your tax breaks?

Take it or leave it. Both SS and tax breaks. Or neither. If you want government out of providing for your security, then get it out (and that means tax breaks too). Otherwise, you are two-faced. You want no government help but you want government to help you save with tax breaks.

 

[Exterous]

The fact is SS is very well funded. The problems aren't financial, they're political. With small adjustments and honest budgeting on OTHER areas of government, Social Security has no problems. At all

Really?

In addition, OASDI continues to fail the long-range test of close actuarial balance. Projected OASDI tax income will be sufficient to finance about 75 percent of scheduled annual benefits in 2037

But while it is projected that the Medicare HI Trust Fund is adequately financed until 2029, and the Social Security OASI and DI Trust Funds are adequately financed until 2040 and 2018, respectively, the significant longer term financial imbalances of the programs still need to be addressed. The sooner action is taken to address the long-run financial imbalances, the more reform options will be available, and the more time there will be to phase in changes so that those affected will have adequate time to prepare.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

 

[Exterous]

Why should I pay 17% of my income to help pay for your tax breaks?

Take it or leave it. Both SS and tax breaks. Or neither. If you want government out of providing for your security, then get it out (and that means tax breaks too). Otherwise, you are two-faced. You want no government help but you want government to help you save with tax breaks.

My biggest issue is that I am being forced to pay into a system that is telling my I will only get 75% of what they are promising. Start a gradual rise in the retirement age until it's pegged to life expectancy and solevent long term and I will have little to no issues with SS