Do you enjoy believing bullshit? People pay in, and the current old people get the money. That is how SS really works, and has always worked. The first people to get SS barely even paid any SS. If you go back far enough, January 31, 1940 I think, the first person who got SS was given a $22.54 check but she only paid in $24.75 in a period of 2 years. After 2 checks she already went well over what she paid in and was drawing on what others were paying in.Originally Posted by diffusionx
can't wake up
Like I said, I know its a legalized Ponzi scheme, but that doesnt mean I have to like it or enjoy the fact that I will be supporting old people for the rest of my working life but that doesnt imply that I will get anything back in return. I dont like it at all.
In short: just give me the fucking money Ive earned in my lifetime. Just give me that fucking money. Because its *my money*.
Last edited by diffusionx; 10 May 2005 at 11:57 AM.
Say Ahhh
Yeah, it's not like Gore was talking about Social Security being a problem back in 2000. It's not like he said we could have taken all that money Bush doled out to the top 5% and used it to prevent benefit cuts in Social Security, atleast for a little while longer (meaning well into the 2020s). Because no matter whose plan you support, even Bush admits they will have to cut some benefits from SS.
That's not right, there was so much pork in the last budget and here we are saying we just don't have the money to protect one of the most progressive programs in the history of the United States.
Time for a change
of Nazareth
Thats why they should change the age at which you get full SS benefits from 65 to 70 in the near future. With no changes, people would get about 75% of their promised benefits through 2080. With minor changes such as changing the age and diverting some funds from wealthier retirees to those with less income, SS could work well without privitization.
Under Bush's plan you'd inevitably have some retirees who, through poor investment, would recieve almost nothing from the system. What would happen to retirees who had no IRA, and because of a stock market crash lost all their SS funds? Not a pretty picture. I say the system needs tweaking, not an overhaul.
zzzzzzzz
My problem with the Bush plan is that he's refused to raise taxes to pay for the plan, a plan which could cost over a trillion dollars when all is said and done. That money has to come from somewhere. Sen. Lindsey Graham is proposing raising the salary cap at which social security is taken out, amongst other things, for this very reason. I personally don't like the idea, because the government will be the one controlling the initial portfolio you get to choose from when investing, which amounts to the government essentially sponsoring certain companies.
Sausage King
I think Bush's plan would make the portion of SS you set aside work like a mini 401k DC, it just isn't matched by your employer. 401k's are very stable and you pick the funds the money goes into. I don't remember, though, does the Bush plan have like a gamut of funds to pick from or is it just a private investment with some pretty dead-on funds? Or am I totally misinformed?
zzzzzzzz
He hasn't gone into much detail yet, that I know of. That said, he's using the TSP program for federal employees as his model, and here's what factcheck.org had to say about that:
LinkThe TSP allows federal employees to set aside retirement savings in tax-deferred accounts where workers may choose among five broadly diversified funds of stocks, bonds or government securities. "Index" funds are quite cheap to run because the securities they buy are chosen by a formula, to imitate broad stock-market indexes such as the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index.
Former President Of The USA
My Opinion:
Social Security is bunk. It's a ruined system, collapsed by misuse. It would be just fine if it did what it said: you get what you put in (plus interest accrued). Then it would be fine. However, that's not how it works. Right now, some Bingo-addicted, grandson-spoiling old woman in Tuscon, AZ is spending what I'm putting in, and that isn't right.
As cold as it is to say, I don't feel it is my responsibility to take care of other people's grandparents/elderly. Hell, I work at a nursing home. I love the people I care for. I don't dislike old folks at all, but it isn't my job to take care of society's elderly. If my grandfather has a need, then let me take care of him. If my parents become old and frail, and need money or assistance, let me and my brother arrange for it. It isn't the public's job to be robbed.
As I said, if the system did what it said it would, I'd be fine with it. And here's something for those who wish to help out the general populace: why not have an option to give into a general fund? I have multiple options on my paycheck in regards for the IRS. I can have dependents and deductions and God knows what else. I should be able to choose whether I want my SS tax to go into a slush fund or if it should be used only for me and my future dependents.
As for privatization, I like the idea. However, some people, many in fact, could get burned by it due to their own lack of intelligence (if we were allowed to choose our own funds to invest in). If the government chooses the funds, I view that as being slightly corrupt. Why? Because it immediately gives the benefit to the government. They can just choose to invest in their own projects or companies related to their projects, and that isn't right.
Also, imagine the screwing of the stock market. Just think, the government announces that they'll be using the SS Privatized fund with X Company stock, or X Company mutual fund. Everyone will flock to it, initially, because hey, "The government must think it a safe bet, so we should be able to jump on, too, right?" Maybe right. Maybe wrong. They'd have to keep the SS investment secret, and that, to me, is also corrupt, as I should have access to my numbers whenever I feel like and should, for conscience purposes, know where my money is going. I may not want my money to be supporting weapon manufacturers, or forest loggers, or oil companies, or fast-food chains.
Last edited by Jimmy Carter; 11 May 2005 at 01:05 PM.
bastard of the new world order.
can't wake up
Its kind of funny that you mention that. One of the questions made of John Kerry during the debates last year was on his national health care plan (I am for a national health care plan). He said that he, as a federal employee, has a choice to use the federal health care plan or a wide array of different options. He simply wanted to extend this model to all Americans. Fine, very good.
Since he is a federal employee, he has a wide array of options to put his retirement money on. Yet, he is opposed to Bush's plan to extend this model to all Americans!
Interesting. I realize John Kerry is irrelevant nowadays but its still something to think about.
zzzzzzzz
I'm surprised Bush and Rove haven't brought that up yet. Good point, Diffx.
There is a bit of difference though. With a nation health care plan, you spread the cost/premiums out across potentially the entire US population, thus, helping keep insurance costs down. You're helping yourself, but it's the power of everyone chipping in together that keeps those cost down. With the private accounts plan for SS, you're really only helping yourself, and that's assuming you're smart enough to invest in the right stocks/bonds/funds.
The government involvement in the stock market is my biggest worry though. That, and the fact you can only divert $1000, IIRC. It's better than nothing, but...I dunno.
I don't think private accounts are the answer to SS's problems, but I can't come up with anything resembling a legit long-term solution.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks