Can someone explain to me why we can't privatize social security

[the_clockwork]

???

 

[yonkers weights]

Dem's!!!

Bush has wanted to do this but the Dem's know that the animals will spend and not save on their own.

 

[the_clockwork]

Dem's!!!

Bush has wanted to do this but the Dem's know that the animals will spend and not save on their own.

what if we had the government controled the private accounts and it could not be touched until at least 63?

so instead of my check going straight to the government it goes to a private "savings" account and slowly builds up for me to withdrawl at the age of 65

 

[puddlemonkey]

so instead of my check going straight to the government it goes to a private "savings" account and slowly builds up for me to withdrawl at the age of 65

lol Good luck with that.

 

[txbondsman]

what if we had the government controled the private accounts and it could not be touched until at least 63?

so instead of my check going straight to the government it goes to a private "savings" account and slowly builds up for me to withdrawl at the age of 65

that's the general idea, vote conservative...

 

[mrplunkey]

???

Because privatization would work and further support the argument that the government is in a lot of businesses (i.e. retirement) that it has absolutely no business trying to do.

I also think that its a big-government versus small government thing. The big-g guys like the notion that social security "participants" (yeah, kinda like inmates "participate" in their own incarceration) have no say in how the money is invested or payed-out. A lot of the high-intellect big-g guys actually believe government is protecting the stupid, unwashed masses by limiting their ability to make decisions they see as potentially harmful.

 

[the_clockwork]

that's the general idea, vote conservative...

I'm just trying to see the backdraws of this idea.. maybe I'm closed minded but I see none..

I was hoping the die hard liberals would chime in

 

[txbondsman]

I'm just trying to see the backdraws of this idea.. maybe I'm closed minded but I see none..

I was hoping the die hard liberals would chime in

AAP, Mava or the infamos WODIN (he likes to shout his name) in 3...2...1

 

[mrplunkey]

I'm just trying to see the backdraws of this idea.. maybe I'm closed minded but I see none..

I was hoping the die hard liberals would chime in

The liberal argument I've seen goes something like this:

1) If we give people freedom to invest they may not invest wisely and might wind-up with an inadequate nest-egg for retirement (yeah, like that doesn't happen now)

and

2) Privatization is a trick by Bush/Cheney to become even richer and thus dominate the world more in their never-ending campaign to further the mean-spirited republicans.

Yeah, neither argument makes much sense to me either.

 

[yonkers weights]

AAP in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Wait he is out handing out Billary flyers.

 

[yonkers weights]

LOL
So true!!!

The liberal argument I've seen goes something like this:

1) If we give people freedom to invest they may not invest wisely and might wind-up with an inadequate nest-egg for retirement (yeah, like that doesn't happen now)

and

2) Privatization is a trick by Bush/Cheney to become even richer and thus dominate the world more in their never-ending campaign to further the mean-spirited republicans.

Yeah, neither argument makes much sense to me either.

 

[txbondsman]

looks to me that Warren Buffett could handel the job pretty well for the government, he's done fairly well with Berkshire Hathaway...

 

[needtogetarmy]

The average American is not smart enough to save for his/her retirement. We need the government to do it for us.

 

[musclemom]

Well, the other thing is how do you go about discontinuing it? They've created this fucking monster and they need to feed it.

As I understand it, if everyone were to stop paying social security say today, there would be no money left to support the people who are currently ON it in XYZ months or years (a financially savvy person could probably give you exact numbers). But I've never been under the impression that you get the money YOU pay into SS (it's not like that money is sitting in a nice money market somewhere gathering interest). No, the baby boomers are collecting what we're paying now. We'll be supported by the next two generations or so, and so on.

They'd have to make a decision to stop social security, and announce they were implementing the plan in 20 or 30 years, so everyone be prepared. Can you imagine the uproar from everyone who's paying SS now? They would be screaming that the people who are collecting now are fucking them over because they have less to pay into their funds ... it's a snake eating it's tail.

If I'm wrong about the above, I'll gladly admit it and would be happy if someone more knowledgeable corrects me.

 

[Shankster]

The PRIMARY reason is that politicians (Dems mostly) use the $$ that are comming in to buy votes. There will be hell to pay but the ones actually responsible will be long gone.

The idea of private savings accounts will never pass because the politicians will not be able to spend the money.

The first "fix" will be to up the contribution limit (Obama). That is a double whammy for the next "fix"

The second "fix" will be to "MEANS TEST" the entitlement. This means that anyone who has saved will not be eligible regardless of how much money you put into the system.

Then ultimately the system will collapse as all Ponsi schemes are doomed to do and there will be blood in the streets.

Does anyone here under the age of 45 expect to ever see a nickle of their SS?

 

[cindylou]

No - especially since all of us need to have at least one child to support us in retirement - per person.

Immigrants wont look so bad when we are about to retire huh? lol.

 

[yonkers weights]

I know I will never see a dime of the money I put in. I am 30. It will only last another 10-15 years. Personal 401k, Roth and Traditional IRA's, Insurance and Investments are my only hope for retirement.

 

[mrplunkey]

The average American is not smart enough to save for his/her retirement. We need the government to do it for us.

And that, in a nutshell, is one of the fundamental planks of the liberal platform. Its the belief that people don't really know what's best for them and that government can make those decisions for them better.

Being a mean-spirited republican myself, here's something that I noticed a long time ago. Few things bother me more than going into a convenience store and seeing someone who appears to be low(er) income buy $5 in gasoline, a package of cigarettes, some cheeze puffs and a super-jackpot lottery ticket.

1) They shouldn't be smoking regardless, but someone of lower income can't afford the direct *or* indirect costs of smoking (i.e. health problems)

2) They shouldn't be eating cheese puffs either (see point 1)

3) God knows they shouldn't be buying a lottery ticket either. Those things are a tax levied on people who are bad at statistics.

But guess what? THAT person is making a decision on how to spend THEIR money. As much as I'd like to grab them and shake some sense into them, it's not my place to decide how they spend their money. While it would be easy to sit in an ivory tower and tell them to spend the same money on a gym membership and healthier living, who's to say they don't get maximum utility from what they are doing right now? Its their money, let the spend it however they wish.

 

[mrplunkey]

Well, the other thing is how do you go about discontinuing it? They've created this fucking monster and they need to feed it.

As I understand it, if everyone were to stop paying social security say today, there would be no money left to support the people who are currently ON it in XYZ months or years (a financially savvy person could probably give you exact numbers). But I've never been under the impression that you get the money YOU pay into SS (it's not like that money is sitting in a nice money market somewhere gathering interest). No, the baby boomers are collecting what we're paying now. We'll be supported by the next two generations or so, and so on.

They'd have to make a decision to stop social security, and announce they were implementing the plan in 20 or 30 years, so everyone be prepared. Can you imagine the uproar from everyone who's paying SS now? They would be screaming that the people who are collecting now are fucking them over because they have less to pay into their funds ... it's a snake eating it's tail.

If I'm wrong about the above, I'll gladly admit it and would be happy if someone more knowledgeable corrects me.

To get out of the SS pyramid scheme, you'd have to let people buy-out of the system over time and then fill the remaining gap with taxpayer money (which is going to happen anyway as the boomers retire and there aren't enough people working to support them). So it would look something like this:

1) People 55+, you pay into the pyramid scheme and get full benefits. You're stuck in the old system.

2) People 40-55, you could continue to pay-into the traditional system, or wave some (or all) of your benefits in exchange for using a private account

3) People 30-40, you have to pay-in at 35% levels until you are 40, but don't get anything out of it. Invest the other 65% in a private account, but think of they 35% as a "get out of the system" fee.

4) People 18-30, you have to pay-in at 20% levels until you are 40, bu don't get anything out of it, etc. etc.

 

[musclemom]

To get out of the SS pyramid scheme, you'd have to let people buy-out of the system over time and then fill the remaining gap with taxpayer money (which is going to happen anyway as the boomers retire and there aren't enough people working to support them). So it would look something like this:

1) People 55+, you pay into the pyramid scheme and get full benefits. You're stuck in the old system.

2) People 40-55, you could continue to pay-into the traditional system, or wave some (or all) of your benefits in exchange for using a private account

3) People 30-40, you have to pay-in at 35% levels until you are 40, but don't get anything out of it. Invest the other 65% in a private account, but think of they 35% as a "get out of the system" fee.

4) People 18-30, you have to pay-in at 20% levels until you are 40, bu don't get anything out of it, etc. etc.

Christ, people are not going to like that ... and the bitch of it is, the govt. would never GO for something that simple, additionally you know congress would introduce loopholes and exceptions (same as with taxes, instead of something simple and straightforward like a flat tax) to satisfy constituents and buy votes of certain age groups.

 

[cindylou]

Christ, people are not going to like that ... and the bitch of it is, the govt. would never GO for something that simple, additionally you know congress would introduce loopholes and exceptions (same as with taxes, instead of something simple and straightforward like a flat tax) to satisfy constituents and buy votes of certain age groups.

Not just that but Option 3 sucks I'd hate to fall into that category and not have other investments. Think of all the money you would have put in before that, and you still have to pay 35% for another 10 years, for nothing.

 

[the_clockwork]

401k's are options for retirement.. why can't people do them both?

aren't 401k's required to be offered by companies?

 

[mrplunkey]

Christ, people are not going to like that ... and the bitch of it is, the govt. would never GO for something that simple, additionally you know congress would introduce loopholes and exceptions (same as with taxes, instead of something simple and straightforward like a flat tax) to satisfy constituents and buy votes of certain age groups.

All true. There just isn't a way to shut the pyramid scheme down without taxpayers paying for it. Even the exisiting program as-is will require a bailout.

Really the only thing to negotiate is whether you hit everyone based on income (i.e. a traditional taxpayer bail-out) or if you spread the pain based on how far into the pyramid scheme you already are.

 

[mrplunkey]

401k's are options for retirement.. why can't people do them both?

aren't 401k's required to be offered by companies?

People are doing both. Anyone under 45 or so shouldn't be so naive as to think they'll ever see a significant amount of SS.

And 401k's aren't required to be offered.

 

[cindylou]

401k's are options for retirement.. why can't people do them both?

aren't 401k's required to be offered by companies?

I dont think it has to be a 401

 

[the_clockwork]

People are doing both. Anyone under 45 or so shouldn't be so naive as to think they'll ever see a significant amount of SS.

And 401k's aren't required to be offered.

I'm 25 and I have had a 401 for 2 years and SS isn't an option I give to it no matter what but I don't think I'll ever see it

 

[gotmilk]

ok..who manages these accounts??

Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, some scammy hedge fund?

 

[rnch]

The average American is not smart enough to save for his/her retirement. We need the government to do it for us.

after seeing what the "average" person around here did with their post-katrina FEMA checks; there is NO doubt in my mind that they could be trusted to save and invest regularly for 30 or 40 years in a retirement fund.

 

[mrplunkey]

after seeing what the "average" person around here did with their post-katrina FEMA checks; there is NO doubt in my mind that they could be trusted to save and invest regularly for 30 or 40 years in a retirement fund.

But why stop at managing their retirement? Why not also manage their here-and-now?

Think of all the bad food choices people make -- we could choose for them and prevent them from eating all that bad stuff

Think of all the unsafe lifestyle choices people make -- we could choose for them and help them stay healthy and safe

Think of the bad educational and career moves people make -- let's have the goverment slot people into professions in gradeschool and train them appropriately

If someone can't be trusted with their retirement I don't see how we could trust them with food, lifestyle and career choices either.