Privatizing Social Security

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mui, Jan 22, 2005.

?

Should We Privatize Social Security

  1. Yes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No

    11 vote(s)
    36.7%
  3. I'm not sure... i'm dumb!

    19 vote(s)
    63.3%
  1. Mui

    Mui Senior Member

    Do you think that america should privatize it's social security system?

    I personally think that if we privatize social security it will end up like a huge scam like many of the insurance agencies that are existant today.
     
  2. Pointbreak

    Pointbreak Banned

    I believe privatizing social security will lead to more comfortable retirements, a lower fiscal burden on the federal budget, and better long term growth prospects for the US economy. It will also improve fairness of the system.
     
  3. Gabino

    Gabino Member

    Yep.

    Exactly right.
     
  4. TheMadcapSyd

    TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

    It also gives us more choice on what to do with our own money.
     
  5. Kandahar

    Kandahar Banned

    It's a huge scam right now. The money you pay into social security isn't invested or saved for you...it's used immediately to pay retirees. This kind of program is called a Pyramid Scheme, and it's illegal for anyone other than the government to do it.

    I do think social security needs to be privatized, but it also needs to be completely restructured.
     
  6. HonkyTonk

    HonkyTonk Member

    For my own person i do believe that social security should be privatized, i feel that i can make better choices with my money than anyone else can.

    Unfortunately, if we were to privatize Social Security, some people would simply spend the money instead of using it for retirement. So some vestige of social security should remain and be a safety net to those who choice not to use it.
     
  7. Eliot

    Eliot Member

    I love the idea of it, but it would not work. However, with the government continually taking money out of social security, it has gotten to the point of necessity.

    I'm not sure which I would prefer. I suppose I'm still on the fence for this one.
     
  8. thespeez

    thespeez Member

    I agree with your opinion here and also second the comments made by MadcapSyd, Gabino, Kandahar and Pointbreak. Let's not also forget that often times the savings in a private investment/retirement portfolio almost always outweigh the return on investment from a government sponsored program.

    People need to be educated early on that in order to have a comfortable retirement they need to save for it! I believe that if people understood this fact, it would behoove them to take the necessary measures to prepare for it! For those who choose not to take such measures, they may need to rely on charitable measures. The other measure may perhaps be to allow social security only for those who really want it.
     
  9. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Bush’s plan to partially privatize Social Security will raise interest rates and adversely impact financial markets.

    This is not an unnecessary fix for Social Security; it is a bailout of the stock and bond markets. It is another delaying tactic. Who would want to divert their Social Security into an overpriced stock market that is about to fall 50%? This insane plan will drive up the federal budget deficit for several decades. It would have to drive up interest rates.

    Economic forecaster Robert Chapman said it best:

    "Yes, Social Security is broke. If our politicians stopped stealing the $200 billion-a-year we paid into the program, it would be a firm step forward in helping the problem. There is absolutely no question that George Bush and the neocons depict the Social Security crisis in the direst terms possible to build support for their privatization scheme to bail out Wall Street and the stock market. In reality, that scheme will make the shortfall far worse by requiring the government to go another $2 trillion in debt and that is just for openers. This is another game of misinformation, misdirection and lies fed to into the media to build a case for more disastrous debt. The system does not need privatization, it needs to be fixed and that is simple; stop the politicians from looting the funds. Segregate the real funds, invest the funds in real government bonds that trade, not bonds that sit in a vault and in fact, are worthless."
     
  10. Mui

    Mui Senior Member

    you know we can change the system of social security to include investments instead of completely privatizing it.
     
  11. Eugene

    Eugene Senior Member

    I think it would be simpler if the government made it so that every company had to give you a sort of pension plan, the government then takes an insuarace policy out against that pension. If the company goes bust, the government will give you the money from the insurance, and if the company survives longer than you do then you'll still have your pension.
    This would cost a hell of a lot less than social security, and the ensuing beuracracy would be minimal compared to most other federal programs.
     
  12. Sera Michele

    Sera Michele Senior Member

    What about the stay at home moms? The disabled?

    I think our gov't owes all it's citizens a retirement saftey net. One that is a sure thing. Privitizing it is a bad idea, IMO. It would not benefit us equally and fairly, it only affords retirement to those who can afford it.
     
  13. Pointbreak

    Pointbreak Banned

    Actually privatization has no affect on stay at home moms or the disabled, nor does it afford retirement only to those that can afford it. Apparently you have been mislead as to what privatization means.
     
  14. Sera Michele

    Sera Michele Senior Member

    I was talking about Eugene's idea of pension plans.
    (about the stay at home moms and such)

    But there is no way you could convince me that privitizing SS will be a benefit to people with low incomes, and women.

    http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503#11
     
  15. Jozak

    Jozak Member

    Social Security should be optionalized. If you want the government to take care of your money for you, then by all means let them have it. I and others on the other hand, want to invest and spend our money that we earned how we see fit, and that means if I choose to blow all of it away now, it's my right and my choice.
     
  16. Pointbreak

    Pointbreak Banned

    That's encouraging. Mind if I try anyway? Explain why either of these groups will lose from privatization.
     
  17. homebudz

    homebudz Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    I personally think that if bush succeeds in privitizing the SS,it will go the same way as enron for example.I just don't trust him,or his ideas.They usually mean more to the big corporations then it does to us,or does them more good I should say.Short true story:When I was young I hated putting into SS,figuring I would never see it.At 32,my wounds from vietnam finally won out,and I was hospitalized for 68 days.When I left,I was on SSD,and have been ever since.Morale of the story:You never can tell what lies ahead for each of you in the future,as I didn't.Don't be too hasty in wanting to get rid of one of the few "we pay into" govt programs.It might just come back and bite you in the ass.
     
  18. Sera Michele

    Sera Michele Senior Member

    Well besides the other link I gave in my earlier post, here is that is specific to how privitizing will affect women:
    http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/CATORIB.PDF

    And for low-income workers it is simple:
    http://www.lcao.org/legagenda/ss/ss_privatization.htm
    "Privatization could destroy the progressive nature of the Social Security program. In a system of private accounts, lower-income workers would have less to invest than higher income earners, and less opportunity to accumulate sufficient returns for their retirement years."


    http://www.econop.org/SocialSecurity/SS-PrivatizingOnHold.HTM

    "Over 3 million children are among Social Security’s beneficiaries. On September 11 when the World Trade Center and a good chunk of our sense of national security collapsed, thousands of children lost a working parent. The loss of family income resulting from those deaths will be huge, but the majority of those children will receive Social Security checks every month until they are eighteen. Benefits are allocated based on the number of family members, and replace a higher percentage of wages for low income workers than for high income workers. This means that surviving children will receive significant income supplements whether their parent was a restaurant worker or a highly paid executive, was relatively new to the work force or well established in a career...

    ...The rules of individual investment accounts are different. With these, the more you make, the longer you invest, and the better the economy, the more you end up with. And when the money’s gone, it’s gone. Even workers with company retirement plans need Social Security’s secure base. Women, who typically earn less, spend more time caring for family, and live longer, and minority families who earn less and rely more heavily on disability and survivors benefits, are especially likely to fare worse without Social Security’s guarantees."
     
  19. Pointbreak

    Pointbreak Banned

    I can refute every single one of those claims. Easily.

    "Privatization could destroy the progressive nature of the Social Security program. In a system of private accounts, lower-income workers would have less to invest than higher income earners, and less opportunity to accumulate sufficient returns for their retirement years."

    Social security pays according to average income and time worked. That means those earning low incomes and those who are unemployed for long periods of time get lower benefits when they retire. This is the "progressive nature" of social security. How is privatization different?

    The statement also deliberately implies that privatization of social security is elimination of social security. It is not. Social security will still exist and provides a guaranteed basic income. The difference is that people can invest and get a supplement to this basic income in the form of private accounts.

    ...The rules of individual investment accounts are different. With these, the more you make, the longer you invest, and the better the economy, the more you end up with. And when the money’s gone, it’s gone. Even workers with company retirement plans need Social Security’s secure base. Women, who typically earn less, spend more time caring for family, and live longer, and minority families who earn less and rely more heavily on disability and survivors benefits, are especially likely to fare worse without Social Security’s guarantees."

    Again, this is no different than social security. The more you make, the longer you work, the more SS benefits you get. Workers with company retirement plans WILL STILL HAVE social security's secure base.

    Disability and survivors benefits will still exist because social security will still exist.

    What's interesting is that minorities tend to live shorter lives and thus collect few social security benefits, even though their working lives and thus payroll tax contributions will be the same. In a private account system, your investments go to your estate and thus your family. In Social Security, your payroll tax contributions are lost if you don't have children under 18 or a spouse who isn't getting his/her own social security. So social security actually shortchanges minorities compared to whites.
     
  20. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    You people all love Big Brother.... I can tell.
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice