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]

save social security

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]

hahaha

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

 

[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?

 

[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?