Privatize % of SS ?

Some or all or none


  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .
I gain actually receiving my Social Security funds, because currently I'm on course of not getting a dime of it back because of you and your generation.

Furthermore, the average return on the stock market over the long haul is 11% per year. The average return on Social Security is around 3% per year.

I wouldn't blame it on a generation. His generation paid for your grandma. Blame it on the mismanagement of the politicians who stole the treasury and left I.O.U's.

And who elected them?

The Baby Boomers are going to bring this country to its knees. They are greediest, most selfish and self centered generation this nation has ever seen. They don't know the meaning of sacrifice that their parents did.

I cannot disagree with that and on top of that only half of them are republicans.
We grew up being programmed by the TV.
 
You can already invest your 401K or IRA in private investments. What do you gain by investing your Social Security funds?

I already save more than 20% of my gross income for retirement by allowing me to keep the additional 15% taken for SS I would be saving closer to 40% of my gross for retirement.

You tell me what that would get me.
 
You support allowing people to invest some or all of the SS payments into private account?

No.

A lot of this argument is based off the false assumption that what you pay into Social Security is "your money." It's not, and every time I hear that it means you have another person who doesn't understand how the system works.

The second problem is that people are stupid. I guarantee that a double digit % of the population would lose every single cent of what they were allowed to invest from Social Security.

Social Security is there as a safety net in an attempt to assure that a person won't end up on the street eating cat food after a lifetime of hard work when they get tossed from a corporation due to ageism. Leave it be. The program, as is currently run, could be saved if folks were willing to make a few tough reforms.
 
A lot of this argument is based off the false assumption that what you pay into Social Security is "your money." It's not, and every time I hear that it means you have another person who doesn't understand how the system works.
So, the money I earned before the feds expropriated 15+% of it wasn't mine to begin with? :eusa_eh:

The second problem is that people are stupid. I guarantee that a double digit % of the population would lose every single cent of what they were allowed to invest from Social Security.
Yeah..."People", except for the overbearing elitist snobs who notice that everyone else is stupid.

Could you be just a little bit more full of yourself?

Social Security is there as a safety net in an attempt to assure that a person won't end up on the street eating cat food after a lifetime of hard work when they get tossed from a corporation due to ageism. Leave it be. The program, as is currently run, could be saved if folks were willing to make a few tough reforms.
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and intergenerational theft, plain and simple....And the few timid "reforms" proposed for it won't change that underlying fact.
 
A lot of this argument is based off the false assumption that what you pay into Social Security is "your money." It's not, and every time I hear that it means you have another person who doesn't understand how the system works.
So, the money I earned before the feds expropriated 15+% of it wasn't mine to begin with? :eusa_eh:

Once you pay it in, it is no longer yours any more than other tax revenue is yours. It isn't sitting around in an account waiting for you.

That's why conversations that start with discussions about "My Social Security" or compare rate of investments are just outright stupid. It's a tax, and like other taxes once you pay it, it isn't yours.

The second problem is that people are stupid. I guarantee that a double digit % of the population would lose every single cent of what they were allowed to invest from Social Security.
Yeah..."People", except for the overbearing elitist snobs who notice that everyone else is stupid.

Could you be just a little bit more full of yourself?

There's a great deal of irony in that last line considering your standard M.O. is one of talking down to folks, but c'est la vie.

I grew up poor. I grew up in a household where in the summers lunch was a meal that didn't always happen. I ate bread and butter sandwiches as a kid. I qualified for the free lunch program in the school year, the only 9 months or so of the year I could be pretty sure I'd have three meals a day. My parents shopped at bargain basement grocery stores and swallowed their pride when they had to and went to the food banks. I was informed at a very early age that I'd have to pay for my own schooling. And I did.

As such, I feel pretty confident in saying that if you hand a person money to invest in Wall Street who has no basic knowledge of how Wall Street works, they indeed will lose that money quickly. It may not be their own actions that loses it either. How many financial planners fleece their investors every year. It wasn't exactly stupid folks that invested with Bernie Madoff.

That doesn't even begin to cover the stupid folks who will just piss the money away at the first chance they get.

Social Security is there as a safety net in an attempt to assure that a person won't end up on the street eating cat food after a lifetime of hard work when they get tossed from a corporation due to ageism. Leave it be. The program, as is currently run, could be saved if folks were willing to make a few tough reforms.
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and intergenerational theft, plain and simple....And the few timid "reforms" proposed for it won't change that underlying fact.

It's a government program. That means it runs on tax payer funds and pays for programs that may or may not affect the person who paid. The reforms that have been suggested, while politically unpopular, could ensure that the program is there in perpetituity.
 
There's a great deal of irony in that last line considering your standard M.O. is one of talking down to folks, but c'est la vie.

I grew up poor. I grew up in a household where in the summers lunch was a meal that didn't always happen. I ate bread and butter sandwiches as a kid. I qualified for the free lunch program in the school year, the only 9 months or so of the year I could be pretty sure I'd have three meals a day. My parents shopped at bargain basement grocery stores and swallowed their pride when they had to and went to the food banks. I was informed at a very early age that I'd have to pay for my own schooling. And I did.
I don't ever presume that I or anyone else is better at living your life for you than you are.

But whatever excuse you need to rationalize such arrogant elitist windbaggery, c'est la vie.


As such, I feel pretty confident in saying that if you hand a person money to invest in Wall Street who has no basic knowledge of how Wall Street works, they indeed will lose that money quickly. It may not be their own actions that loses it either. How many financial planners fleece their investors every year. It wasn't exactly stupid folks that invested with Bernie Madoff.

That doesn't even begin to cover the stupid folks who will just piss the money away at the first chance they get.
Nobody is "handing" anyone anything, by letting them keep what's theirs in the first place, to save, invest or spend as they see fit.

How they choose to dispose of that income is none of your business, no matter how stupid you believe them to be.

Y'know...I used to think that you were kinda-sorta worthy of engaging with a certain amount of reason and civility...But if you want to go at this with nothing more than the attitude of the typical haughty, holier-than-thou east coast snob, I can give your posts all the regard that fuckwits like rdean and Flail-o get.
 
Nobody is "handing" anyone anything, by letting them keep what's theirs in the first place, to save, invest or spend as they see fit.

If the conversation is about cutting the tax rate on Social Security, then sure, let's have that conversation. If folks want to outright eliminate it, have that conversation.

What ticks me off when it comes to this topic though are those folks that think that the money paid into Social Security is "theirs." It isn't theirs any more than the money paid in on Federal Withholding each week. As such, I have little patience for that line of reasoning.

Personally, I'm all for keeping it around with some reforms. I think it is high time we looked again at what retirement age should be and how to manage the limited funds that come in to the Social Security program. I think its more than time for us to make sure that funds paid into Social Security are used for Social Security.

I don't see it as elitism to realize that some folks do need a safety net for various reasons.

That's why I'm in favor of Social Security staying around. It isn't a guarantee of a comfortable life for those that were unable or unwilling to plan ahead. It doesn't pay nearly that well. It's a safety net that helps assure you won't starve or freeze to death on the streets at the end of your life.
 
It's elitist when you proclaim "people are stupid" as a blanket statement. And a certain group people expropriating a significant part of others' earnings, under the guise that they're incapable of caring for their own concerns, while oh-so conveniently excluding themselves from that number of "stupid" people, is the paternalistic attitude of, well, fascists.

That arrogant attitude aside, your well-taken point that there is no specific account for the money that is bilked from me over my working lifetime, tends to underpin my argument that SS is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme and a giant intergenerational welfare program.
 
You support allowing people to invest some or all of the SS payments into private account?

No.

A lot of this argument is based off the false assumption that what you pay into Social Security is "your money." It's not, and every time I hear that it means you have another person who doesn't understand how the system works.

The second problem is that people are stupid. I guarantee that a double digit % of the population would lose every single cent of what they were allowed to invest from Social Security.

Social Security is there as a safety net in an attempt to assure that a person won't end up on the street eating cat food after a lifetime of hard work when they get tossed from a corporation due to ageism. Leave it be. The program, as is currently run, could be saved if folks were willing to make a few tough reforms.


Wow. Aren't you a statist little apparatchik.
 
It's elitist when you proclaim "people are stupid" as a blanket statement.

See my sig line. I'm a big believer in the idea that individual persons are pretty smart. You sit down with folks, give them the tools to come to their own conclusions and the resources to do the work, and 9 times out of 10 they will.

The problem is that "people" are stupid Turning a large group loose with no prior knowledge or training guarantees that at best you get a large mess, and at worst you get a lynch mob.

If the idea of personal investment as an alternative to Social Security were accompanied by a quality education on how to responsibly spend money, I'd be fine with that. The problem is that I teach at the college level, and from what I've seen responsible living is never once addressed by parents, or schools, or the world at large. The kids I've seen are reasonably smart, but are turned loose like babes in the wood. The credit card industry, cell phone industry, etc are making a killing off these kids and those are the legal enterprises.

As to the other point: Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme? Sure. That isn't a problem though as long as it is working.
 
It's elitist when you proclaim "people are stupid" as a blanket statement.

See my sig line. I'm a big believer in the idea that individual persons are pretty smart. You sit down with folks, give them the tools to come to their own conclusions and the resources to do the work, and 9 times out of 10 they will.

The problem is that "people" are stupid Turning a large group loose with no prior knowledge or training guarantees that at best you get a large mess, and at worst you get a lynch mob.

If the idea of personal investment as an alternative to Social Security were accompanied by a quality education on how to responsibly spend money, I'd be fine with that. The problem is that I teach at the college level, and from what I've seen responsible living is never once addressed by parents, or schools, or the world at large. The kids I've seen are reasonably smart, but are turned loose like babes in the wood. The credit card industry, cell phone industry, etc are making a killing off these kids and those are the legal enterprises.

As to the other point: Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme? Sure. That isn't a problem though as long as it is working.
So, is bank robbery equally "not a problem", as long as you can get away with?...Are you serious?

At what point are people "allowed" to take responsibility for their own lives?

Your approach prevents the thrifty and industrious from becoming literal millionaires, in the name of a "safety net" for those who aren't....It codifies general mediocrity of the many, in the name of ameliorating the incompetence, sloth and shortsightedness of a relative few.
 
Last edited:
So, is bank robbery equally "not a problem", as long as you can get away with?...Are you serious?

Different crime, so the analogy doesn't work. If you're thinking of Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme, the thing to consider is that no one calls the cops on Ponzi Schemes until they stop getting a return. With reform, the Social Security system can provide you similar benefits, adjusted for inflation, to that provided to current recipients.

Now, you come to the real problem of dismantling it. Simply closing the program means everyone loses out. Those currently benefiting are benefiting because they paid in. As such, they have a reasonable expectation to continue to get benefits. Those paying in will want their benefits too. Closing the program down will have an enormous, and avoidable, cost. So why not simply reform it and keep going.

At what point are people "allowed" to take responsibility for their own lives?

People take responsibility every day with every action and every decision. Having a safety net doesn't undercut responsbility, especially when the safety net only "guarantees" a subsistance living at best. All you're doing is preventing someone from dying on the streets due to factors that may very well be outside their own control.

Your approach prevents the thrifty and industrious from becoming literal millionaires, in the name of a "safety net" for those who aren't....It codifies general mediocrity of the many, in the name of ameliorating the incompetence, sloth and shortsightedness of a relative few.

The thrifty are still doing pretty well. I know quite a few folks on the lower end of the middle class spending range that are still saving and living comfortably post retirement.

Like any safety net, there will be some that end up in it due to their own laziness or sloth. And if such, they're welcome to the life that Social Security provides. In case you missed it, it's not exactly a huge income or a comfortable social scale. And if you're on Social Security because you made bad economic decisions or were lazy, chances are good the life you're looking at won't exactly be a good one.

Safety nets are there to help those that through no fault of their own end up out of luck, which does happen. A random home fire, a diagnosis of cancer, or one of any number of events could leave even the most thrifty of us bankrupt in short order through no fault of our own. That's who the net is for.
 
So now you can explain how people who work their whole lives paying in "do nothing" to earn Social Security. :lol:
You pay in your whole life for food stamps and you don't get them, just because a happenstance of the calendar.

Just because you have a completely separate program called "Social Security" doesn't mean it's not ultimately a handout.

Now that has to rank among the most ignorant statements of all time. Anytime you get back something you paid in on cannot, by any means, be considered a "handout".
Agreed and I think this does need to be emphasized. Whatever traveler wants to put forth, that money IS yours and YOU put it up though you do not have the choice to or not.
You support allowing people to invest some or all of the SS payments into private account?

As long as it is by choice and not by mandate. It is their money, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. Including, but not limited to, leaving it where it is.

I would maybe agree with this but putting a sure thing into something extremely risky like the stock market is not a smart plan.
What makes you view the stock market as 'extremely risky?' That is an asinine statement. Dropping all of your money into buggy stocks as the automobile comes out is risky but the one fact of the stock market is that over time it is guaranteed to increase. In the short term there is no stability but with a diversified portfolio and a sound investment strategy you WILL make money. how much is another matter.
You support allowing people to invest some or all of the SS payments into private account?

No.

A lot of this argument is based off the false assumption that what you pay into Social Security is "your money." It's not, and every time I hear that it means you have another person who doesn't understand how the system works.

The second problem is that people are stupid. I guarantee that a double digit % of the population would lose every single cent of what they were allowed to invest from Social Security.

Social Security is there as a safety net in an attempt to assure that a person won't end up on the street eating cat food after a lifetime of hard work when they get tossed from a corporation due to ageism. Leave it be. The program, as is currently run, could be saved if folks were willing to make a few tough reforms.
You only say that because you do not seem to understand the full scope of privatization. You do not need to turn social security into a gambling program to privatize it. There are better ways.
Social Security payments should be placed in a locked box away from the greedy hands of legislators, banksters and Wall Street tycoons. It should be invested in safe and well regulated accounts earning low but secure interest.
The crooks and liars see social security as a gold mine to be plundered, and the crooks and liars don't care if the aged and infirm live out their lives selling apples on the streets.
Banksters and Brokers provide little and take lots. Payments into social security should not be capped.
Crap, I am agreeing with Wry, maybe I should reevaluate my position ;)

This is the center of privatization. the fact is that congress has rapped the program for all it is worth and the program as a whole is failing because of it. The ONLY way to prevent congress from taking that money is to allow people to invest it themselves. Not only does that ensure the money is there for you after but it also will increase returns on your investments into social security. Those investments should be regulated to safe places and still give you options on where that money should go. There are many investment options open to people that are secure and give decent growth options. Why is there so much fear in allowing people some control of their own money and retirement? What is the problem with that and why are you jumping on the bandwagon that privatization means complete and total deregulation on where that money is invested. there is absolutely no reason why it cannot be focused on safe and reliable investment strategies. Hell, even putting the money in a good CD would be better that the system as it stands now. It may even allow more people to understand how to invest if they can get a leg up with their SS.

Also, you should not be able to opt out as the heart of this program is in a safety net. That net MUST exist as there would be large problems if many retirees were unable to feed themselves. I prefer a system that provides that safety net with funds actually derived from the individual themselves rather than from the government in general.

I have yet to hear a decent argument against simple, controlled privatization over the convoluted disaster we have today. Someone PLEASE tell me why you cannot agree with that?
 

Forum List

Back
Top