Should Social Security be privatized?

[invest07]

According to the White House:

* In 1950, there were 16 workers to support every one beneficiary of Social Security.
* Today, there are only 3.3 workers supporting every Social Security beneficiary.
* In 2008 – just three short years from now – baby boomers will begin to retire. And over the next few decades, people will be living longer and benefits are scheduled to increase dramatically.
* By the time today’s youngest workers turn 65, there will only be 2 workers supporting each beneficiary.

Just 13 years from now, in 2017, the government will begin to pay out more in Social Security benefits than it collects in payroll taxes – and shortfalls then will grow larger with each passing year.

* By the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion a year to keep the system afloat.
* By 2033, the annual shortfall will be more than $300 billion a year.
* By 2041, when workers in their mid-20s begin to retire, the system will be bankrupt – unless we act now to save it.

In 1998 the Social Security Trustees Report estimated the unfunded liability of Social Security at 19 trillion. Today the unfunded liability is estimated at 27trillion. What will it be in 5 years? In 10 years? In 25 years?

How old are you? How long will you pay into Social Security and will it be there when you retire? I've paid into SS over $100,000 so far and still counting. If you are younger than me, your total will be far greater than mine.

Social Security is a shipwreck waiting to happen. How do we solve this mess?

[USMC the Almighty]

Of course it should be privatized. More government bureaucracy isn't the answer to any problem, especially your health or your retirement.

[steveox]

Yes it should be privatized.With the stock market.

[dahermit]

Social Security is a shipwreck waiting to happen. How do we solve this mess?One of the reasons for the coming shortfall is that the government has been raiding the money in the fund for years and never paying it back.

[adam00f]

yes SS should be privatized. because with the new senate, and this bad immigration bill thats Bush wants passed will destroy our SS system.

[SW85]

The problem is overexaggerated. Lower birthrates also means we are spending less money on kids (who require education in addition to all the things the elderly need), which means we have more money to spend on the elderly. It's not the number of retired non-workers that matters, it's the number of total non-workers that matters, and the number of non-working children we aren't producing mostly balances out the non-working elderly we have to take care of. It's just a matter of not plundering SS constantly. At worst, SS taxes can go up a little. Or we can just raise the retirement age, which simultaneously lowers the number of non-working retirees and raises the number of workers paying into SS.

[Dr.Who]

Of course it should be privatized. More government bureaucracy isn't the answer to any problem, especially your health or your retirement.

I agree. And after it is privatized we just might call it a savings account.


p.s. I had a problem accessing my account so Dr.Who is the same as DrWho as I re-registered.

[Beetle Bailey]

Worst idea yet. Privatize? You must be kidding. Depend on private, profit motivated corporations to care for our elderly. Maybe we could use ENRON as a model of how well private corporations look after our interest.

[USMC the Almighty]

Worst idea yet. Privatize? You must be kidding. Depend on private, profit motivated corporations to care for our elderly.

I don't see what's so bad about having people take responsibility for their own future. This country was founded on the concept of personal responsibility. Government control of our lives was exactly what the Framers tried to guard against.

And secondly, I don't see the downside of having profit incorporated into medical care. Profits are what drive people to provide decent medical care. If they don't have money riding on providing quality care, what incentive do they have to work their hardest to provide it?

In fact, profits and the market are what moves things forward. Government bureaucracy doesn't benefit anyone.

Maybe we could use ENRON as a model of how well private corporations look after our interest.

What does Enron have to do with privatizing Social Security?

[Beetle Bailey]

I don't see what's so bad about having people take responsibility for their own future. This country was founded on the concept of personal responsibility. Government control of our lives was exactly what the Framers tried to guard against.

And secondly, I don't see the downside of having profit incorporated into medical care. Profits are what drive people to provide decent medical care. If they don't have money riding on providing quality care, what incentive do they have to work their hardest to provide it?

In fact, profits and the market are what moves things forward. Government bureaucracy doesn't benefit anyone.



What does Enron have to do with privatizing Social Security?

Talk about obvious, right wing pablum. Good thing the insurance companies and the AMA have people like you on their side. What with all that money and all those lobbiests in Washington; they need all the help they can get. They don't have enough power or influence already. You clearly have no idea what this country was founded on. Profits? A concept of personal responsibility? Merely by products of something much larger and more important. This country was founded on the basis of personal freedom and fundemental fairness and equality for all. Of course, there are those who seem to believe that those attributes of democracy are really only for those who can afford it.

[USMC the Almighty]

You clearly have no idea what this country was founded on. Profits? A concept of personal responsibility? Merely by products of something much larger and more important. This country was founded on the basis of personal freedom and fundemental fairness and equality for all. Of course, there are those who seem to believe that those attributes of democracy are really only for those who can afford it.

I never said it was founded on profits, but that is a direct result of freedom and free markets. Like I said, the Founders were true small government conservatives. They never would have wanted the gov't to be in control of our future, because as you said, we were founded on a basis of personal freedom. Government control and liberty are mutually exclusive. You can't have both.

[bokile]

Norway has the best programs for eldery people, we could learn from them:D :D What do you think:D :confused:

[invest07]

Social Security should definitely be privatized.

The purpose of privatization is threefold:

1. Remove this obligation from the public taxpayers.
2. Allow individuals to achieve a higher return on their dollars.
3. To allow an inheritable estate, should the individual not exhaust the lifetime savings.

I have been covered under Social Security since I was a bag boy in an A+P at 16 years old. Over the years I have paid in close to $100K and my employers have contributed a like amount. This is almost $200K so far, and all of this is out of my pocket. (The employer contribution is a payroll expense and your pay would be higher if they didn't have to match SS).

So what do I have to show for my $200K? Zilch, zero, nada, diddly squat. I have a promise to pay from the Feds but there is no money in my account.
The Feds tell me that my benefits have been calculated allowing me a whopping 2% interest rate. But they don't have any money behind my account. Only a promise that they will take my SS money away from a younger worker.

Al Gore often talked about the "Social Security Lock Box" during the 2000 election. This was a lie on his part. The Social Security Lock Box has not existed since LBJ was Prez.

My $200K no longer exists. My $200K went to pay for my parents. The retirement income I expect to receive from SS will be paid by my kids. That is the way SS works. It shifts the load from your generation to your kids.

I started an IRA during the 1980's because I don't believe I will ever see a dime from SS. I have invested in the stock market (mutual funds, actually) and have been able to double my money every 8 years. This is a return averaging about 9% per year.

I am no stock market whiz. Sometimes I don't even look at the account for months at a time. I know nothing about calls and puts and margins. I do exercise reasonable intelligence and most Americans could do as least as well as me.

The value of this IRA has fallen a few times but the fall is always temporary. And it has doubled every 8 years or so, in spite of some falls.

It would be nice if I actually do recieve any money from SS. But I am prepared to receive nothing. I will take care of myself with no public assistance and every American worker should take this same attitude.

The Democrats always scream about the budget deficit and say we are mortgaging our chidren's future. But this is exactly what Social security does.

I'm not a huge fan of GWB but his attempt to privatize SS was a step in the right direction. It was opposed by every Dem in DC.

Remember that fact the next time you step into a voting booth.

[Dr.Who]

Social Security should definitely be privatized.

The purpose of privatization is threefold:

1. Remove this obligation from the public taxpayers.
2. Allow individuals to achieve a higher return on their dollars.
3. To allow an inheritable estate, should the individual not exhaust the lifetime savings.

I have been covered under Social Security since I was a bag boy in an A+P at 16 years old. Over the years I have paid in close to $100K and my employers have contributed a like amount. This is almost $200K so far, and all of this is out of my pocket. (The employer contribution is a payroll expense and your pay would be higher if they didn't have to match SS).

So what do I have to show for my $200K? Zilch, zero, nada, diddly squat. I have a promise to pay from the Feds but there is no money in my account.
The Feds tell me that my benefits have been calculated allowing me a whopping 2% interest rate. But they don't have any money behind my account. Only a promise that they will take my SS money away from a younger worker.

Al Gore often talked about the "Social Security Lock Box" during the 2000 election. This was a lie on his part. The Social Security Lock Box has not existed since LBJ was Prez.

My $200K no longer exists. My $200K went to pay for my parents. The retirement income I expect to receive from SS will be paid by my kids. That is the way SS works. It shifts the load from your generation to your kids.

I started an IRA during the 1980's because I don't believe I will ever see a dime from SS. I have invested in the stock market (mutual funds, actually) and have been able to double my money every 8 years. This is a return averaging about 9% per year.

I am no stock market whiz. Sometimes I don't even look at the account for months at a time. I know nothing about calls and puts and margins. I do exercise reasonable intelligence and most Americans could do as least as well as me.

The value of this IRA has fallen a few times but the fall is always temporary. And it has doubled every 8 years or so, in spite of some falls.

It would be nice if I actually do recieve any money from SS. But I am prepared to receive nothing. I will take care of myself with no public assistance and every American worker should take this same attitude.

The Democrats always scream about the budget deficit and say we are mortgaging our chidren's future. But this is exactly what Social security does.

I'm not a huge fan of GWB but his attempt to privatize SS was a step in the right direction. It was opposed by every Dem in DC.

Remember that fact the next time you step into a voting booth.


Are you suggesting that you have a problem with this Ponzi scheme?:D

[invest07]

DrWho
Yes to your question.
And didn't Ponzi get arrested and serve prison time?
Why didn't FDR get the same for setting up this whole Ponzi scheme?

[heyjude]

Enron is a perfect example of what is wrong with privitazation. There was no law out there the last time I looked that stops people from investing part of their income right now. Indeed, they should be doing that. And don't try to tell me they don't do it because of SS. Most people will tell you they don't believe they will get one cent from it. So why don't they invest their money?

You, if you have ever worked under SS, recieve a letter from SS every year around your birthday. Have you read it? The retirement age is going up. Every so often it goes up. By the time a twenty year old is fifty, it will be around seventy. And it may be changed to go even higher.

The Republicans have been trying to get rid of SS since its inception. That is why they keep taking all the money in it. To bankrupt it. Bottom line. The American people don't want to get rid of it. Deal with it.

[invest07]

Hey Jude:

"1. Enron is a perfect example of what is wrong with privatization."
Enron was unfortunate and if the Clinton Adminstration had been on their toes this would never have happened. Any financial planner will tell you the the odds of any one individual losing money in a "Enron" style collapse is miniscule. I have been investing for 25 years and, so far, no company I have money in has gone belly up. I am not so confident that SS will not go belly up.
One way to avoid being wiped out by an Enron style collapse is diversification. As a flaming Lib, you proabably have no knowledge of even basic economics but diversification means not putting all your eggs in one basket.
2. SS letter. I read mine every year. That was the source for my $200K forced contribution to SS. And my retirement age is 65 years 3 months. That has not changed at any time during my working life.
3. Republicans and SS. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. I understand you are a flaming liberal and probably don't know what this is. Ponzi was a huckster who sold non-existent investments. He paid existing investors out of the money he made from new investors. He relied on new money to pay committiments for the old money. Exactly the same scheme as SS. And every Ponzi scheme eventually comes tumbling down and all the investors lose everything.

When fascism comes to America it will be carried by a liberal.

[invest07]

Hey Jude

If you are worried about Enron, don't put your money into stocks. Put your money in the bank of your choice. Current CD rates are a little over 5% now. Since the guvment pays us a whopping 2% return on SS dollars, putting your money in the bank makes you 2.5 times more return than SS.

(Is it a coincidence that the acronym for Social Security, SS, is also the acronym for Hitler's secret Police?)

Privatization offers you the chance to retire one day with a lot more money to spend than from SS alone. So why are you against earning more money?

[JavaBlack]

Social security needs to be reformed, but privatization is not the answer. Privatization would turn Social Security into a compulsory 401K managed by people chosen by government.
We don't need government to do what private pensions already do. We need them to focus on what they don't do:
1. insurance for those who become disabled, especially if well before retirement
2. help for stay-at-home parents that are widowed and left without any assets
3. the very poor who did not make enough to put away significantly for retirement
4. defined benefit so that there is some income for life no matter how long life goes on
5. and, yes, even a fall-back minimal income for those who were totally irresponsible.

I think the current system should be sacked and should be replaced by a single defined benefit retirement/disability insurance that pays out a certain minimal living amount (below minimum wage) indexed to inflation that comes into effect when someone has a disability that keeps them from working or reaches a certain age and stops working.
The program should promise only a basic living so that middle class people will not feel that they do not need to save.
It should be a safety net in the strictest definition of the term, without the convolusion and pseudo-individualism.
Retirement is not an entitlement... but society should have enough compassion to protect its weakest members.
Balance.

[TruthAboveAll]

Social Security should definitely be privatized.

The purpose of privatization is threefold:

1. Remove this obligation from the public taxpayers.
2. Allow individuals to achieve a higher return on their dollars.
3. To allow an inheritable estate, should the individual not exhaust the lifetime savings.... et al ...Remember that fact the next time you step into a voting booth.

Invest07, didn't need to include the whole post. Good job of examining this. Not a darn part of it I can disagree with!

[OPGhostdog]

Invest07, didn't need to include the whole post. Good job of examining this. Not a darn part of it I can disagree with!

Truthaboveall, I agree with your above quote. Invest07
you are nuts. What about your Parents who have worked
all their lives to retire with a nice income? I suppose you
wants the Government to take away their hard earn money,
and to privatize the government will be taking away their
penison money and their health benefits.

I am glad that whenever my Son do come online, he don't
be making far out comments that he knows nothing about,
and people like you Invest07 & jb_1430 needs to take your
computter to the river and throw it in.

I ready do believe that you and jb_1430 is double screen
name spamming. Because its strange that two people who
has different names post alike.

[TruthAboveAll]

Enron is a perfect example of what is wrong with privitazation. There was no law out there the last time I looked that stops people from investing part of their income right now. Indeed, they should be doing that. And don't try to tell me they don't do it because of SS. Most people will tell you they don't believe they will get one cent from it. So why don't they invest their money?

Enron, Enron, Enron! Every time someone wants to poke holes in methods to scrap/revise/improve Social Security they use the Enron example. Corporate greed and avarice, Enron is the example. Hate to tell you, but Enron is the rarity, not the rule.

Right-o, there is no law preventing investing. The problem is that for many people, the false sense of security provided by SS makes private investing seem risky and unnecessary. For many others, the reduction of income going into the current system cuts their means of investing short. In essence either way, they don't invest because of SS. I'll tell you that, because in many ways, for many people, it's true. With 7.65% of your income going straight to the Fed, without so much as a tax deduction to show for it does have an impact on personal investment practices.

You, if you have ever worked under SS, recieve a letter from SS every year around your birthday. Have you read it? The retirement age is going up. Every so often it goes up. By the time a twenty year old is fifty, it will be around seventy. And it may be changed to go even higher.

Not it may, it will. The solvency of SS depends on it. Or the pseudo-solvency, I should say. Yep, I get the letter every year, and I just file it away in my Big-Government-Big-Problems file. Figure it will give my kids and grandkids something to chuckle over when they go through my stuff when I'm gone.

The Republicans have been trying to get rid of SS since its inception. That is why they keep taking all the money in it. To bankrupt it. Bottom line. The American people don't want to get rid of it. Deal with it.

Not true. Many Republicans are as guilty as Democrats of clinging to this fraying rope. It's been referred to as "the third rail of politics" for decades now for a reason. NO ONE wants to tackle it, in a serious manner. Bush was the first Prez to seriously suggest it, but the smoke lingers where he got shot down in flames.

Republicans do not take the money in SS, to bankrupt it or otherwise. That is a fallacy perpetuated by Congressional Democrats (and presidential hopefuls). The problem is the surplus of SS, which under law MUST be loaned to the Federal Government. Since 1982 (as a result of the four increases from the Carter administration and the Democrat held Congress) the surpluses have ran from $89 million and $153 BILLION per year. That is money that in the SS laws HAD to be loaned. The problem is, will the rest of the Fed be able to pay it back.

If the American people had half a brain, and the ability for objective reasoning with a full set of facts, they'd be screaming to get rid of it. Or at least reform it to the very limited social safety net it should be.

It's hard to "deal with it" when the whole premise is full of falsehoods and half-truths. In 2002, Democrats were presented with such "facts" in a document with the title "Republican Budget Slashes Domestic Priorities and Spends Social Security Surplus." When this kind of drivel is being distributed to the Democratic Caucus on the Congressional level, it's no wonder that the rank and file Democrat party members and voters are misled.

[TruthAboveAll]

Social security needs to be reformed, but privatization is not the answer. Privatization would turn Social Security into a compulsory 401K managed by people chosen by government.
We don't need government to do what private pensions already do. We need them to focus on what they don't do:
1. insurance for those who become disabled, especially if well before retirement
2. help for stay-at-home parents that are widowed and left without any assets
3. the very poor who did not make enough to put away significantly for retirement
4. defined benefit so that there is some income for life no matter how long life goes on
5. and, yes, even a fall-back minimal income for those who were totally irresponsible.

I think the current system should be sacked and should be replaced by a single defined benefit retirement/disability insurance that pays out a certain minimal living amount (below minimum wage) indexed to inflation that comes into effect when someone has a disability that keeps them from working or reaches a certain age and stops working.
The program should promise only a basic living so that middle class people will not feel that they do not need to save.
It should be a safety net in the strictest definition of the term, without the convolusion and pseudo-individualism.
Retirement is not an entitlement... but society should have enough compassion to protect its weakest members.
Balance.

Java, I think you're wrong on a few things, but you've got a lot of really good thoughts and observations. If our elected fearless leaders could just sit down with some of the things you've spelled out here, I'm sure they could straighten out the mess, mostly that they've inherited, but partly that they've made. Especially those of long tenure who have heard the warning bells since at least 1988 and failed to act.

I'd love to see that as a campaign issue for the House and Senate. Anyone who has been there since say, 1990 should get the boot for their failure to act in behalf of the American citizens, and put them at risk for, as invest says, a "Ponzi" scheme. (Exactly right!) They've done nothing short of betraying the public trust.

[jb_1430]

This obsession you seem to have with me kind of creeps me out.
No one is trying to take away your parents retirement income.


Truthaboveall, I agree with your above quote. Invest07
you are nuts. What about your Parents who have worked
all their lives to retire with a nice income? I suppose you
wants the Government to take away their hard earn money,
and to privatize the government will be taking away their
penison money and their health benefits.

I am glad that whenever my Son do come online, he don't
be making far out comments that he knows nothing about,
and people like you Invest07 & jb_1430 needs to take your
computter to the river and throw it in.

I ready do believe that you and jb_1430 is double screen
name spamming. Because its strange that two people who
has different names post alike.

[invest07]

JavaBlack

"Privatization would turn Social Security into a compulsory 401K managed by people chosen by government."

Privatization is not designed to replace all of SS but is is proposed to allow perhaps as much as 20-30% of the employees contribution to SS to be diverted into an account that the empoyee actually owns. A 401K is managed by the empoyer and the average return on 401k's is over 7%. So what is wrong with replacing a portion of SS with a compulsory 401K?

As to your 5 points:
1. SS presently provides disability coverage at any age up to 65.
2. Medicare does provide some care for elderly stay at home parents. I know this area very well as I have already been through this with my parents. Medicare provides for medical equipment such as hospital beds, wheel chairs, medical pumps, oxygen, etc at no cost. Medicare also provides for regular home visits by visiting nurses at no cost.
3. This has been a problem for all of human history. Currently SS pays for retirement only if you have paid into the system. Welfare benefits are available at any age and may be the answer to this problem.
4. SS provides a modified form of defined benefit. When you retire you know exactly how much you will receive as long as you live. It is a modified system because the defined benefit is raised from time to time for inflation.
5. As far as I know, there is no cure for stupidity. Those who have worked, planned and saved owe nothing to those who have pissed it away.

I object very strongly to generation shifting which is the foundation of SS. My $200K is gone. It paid for my parents and others of their age. My SS benefits will be passed on to my kids. Privatization breaks this cycle. The portion of my dollars that are privatized are mine. When they are gone, there is no financial obligation to be shifted to the next generation.

SS is a Ponzi scheme that was created by a liberal Democrat (FDR). It has been misrepresented to the American public and is in far shakier financial condition than any of the national Dems will admit.

Privatization can't be applied to 100% of this generation's contribution. But it could be applied to 10% and this could increase by 5-10% with each succeeding generation. Privatization effectively removes SS as a public taxpayer obligation and serves to make the next generation a little richer instead of poorer.

[invest07]

OPGhostDoggie
Where did you learn to write? Perhaps a refresher course in 5th grade grammar and composition would be in order for you.
Nobody wants to take away my parents retirement income. If you had read my posts you would know this.
I do want to break the cycle of generation shifting that forces my kids to pay for me. Privatization shifts no obligation to my kids.

Are you still ticked at me for telling the truth about Muhammed's treatment of women as third class citizens? Muhammed teachs 72 virgins await Islamic martyrs. My guess is that Muhammed was a world class sex pervert as his vision of paradise is a perpetual erection with women to satisfy every whim.
Anyone with half a brain that reads the Koran will reach the conclusion that Muhammed was a megalomaniac who contradicted himself every other page.

[invest07]

jb 1430
Are you and I really double screen name spammers?
And what the hell is a double screen name spammer?
I think maybe OPGhosty is not getting enough fiber in his diet.