Privatize % of SS ?

[McDowell's]

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.

Ponzi schemes are illegal regardless of whether the cops are called or authorities are aware of their existence. No analogy is required. You admitted social security is a ponzi scheme. As such, the system needs to be reformed to something sustainable. Saying the status quo works and at the same time admitting it's an inherently flawed system is completely contradictory. Just because the failure point is somewhere in the distant future doesn't mean the underlying issues shouldn't be addressed. The sooner they are addressed the less damage that will occur in the long run.

Why wouldn't people want their money placed into a system of wealth creation rather than a shuffle game of transfer payments? This isn't an all or nothing discussion. Allowing a certain level of private investment with social security funds in a restricted group of funds would create a more effective system.

To a certain exent, you're right. Once the government acquires this money through taxation, it is no longer mine or yours. It then becomes our money collectively, and the government putting it under its proverbial mattress is screwing us all.

 

[signelect]

I am all for leaving it to the taxpayer IF they will sign a contract that say if I screw up and loss it all i will not accept assistance from the GOV. Most people don't have the sense to manage that money.

 

[Oddball]

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.

The thrifty and industrious are doing fine despite having 15+% of their earnings bilked away to pay for that Ponzi scheme, not because of it.

That said, you're still taking a substantial portion of their production, which would serve everyone better circulating in the private sector rather than just being seized and transferred. And there would also be much more money available for families private charities to care for the amount of people who ended up broke through no fault of their own, which would likely be a fraction of those who simply failed to plan for their futures and deserve to live on the poor farm.

 

[boedicca]

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.

The thrifty and industrious are doing fine despite having 15+% of their earnings bilked away to pay for that Ponzi scheme, not because of it.

That said, you're still taking a substantial portion of their production, which would serve everyone better circulating in the private sector rather than just being seized and transferred. And there would also be much more money available for families private charities to care for the amount of people who ended up broke through no fault of their own, which would likely be a fraction of those who simply failed to plan for their futures and deserve to live on the poor farm.

And to add insult to injury, we have to pay income taxes on the Social Security and Medicare taxes.

 

[DaGoose]

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.

The thrifty and industrious are doing fine despite having 15+% of their earnings bilked away to pay for that Ponzi scheme, not because of it.

That said, you're still taking a substantial portion of their production, which would serve everyone better circulating in the private sector rather than just being seized and transferred. And there would also be much more money available for families private charities to care for the amount of people who ended up broke through no fault of their own, which would likely be a fraction of those who simply failed to plan for their futures and deserve to live on the poor farm.

So now you're saying that people could be "circulating their money in the private sector" instead of saving and investing in their futures? And, according to you, it would be preferable for people to beg from charities who ends up broke.

Guess what? We've already been down that road pre-Social Security and it doesn't work.

Social Security has kept and is keeping MILLIONS OF PEOPLE out of poverty. You don't like it? Take it up with them.

Better yet, don't be a hypocrite by signing up for your "handout" from the government when your time comes.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Ponzi schemes are illegal regardless of whether the cops are called or authorities are aware of their existence. No analogy is required. You admitted social security is a ponzi scheme. As such, the system needs to be reformed to something sustainable. Saying the status quo works and at the same time admitting it's an inherently flawed system is completely contradictory. Just because the failure point is somewhere in the distant future doesn't mean the underlying issues shouldn't be addressed. The sooner they are addressed the less damage that will occur in the long run.

First up: When you're the one making the laws, you can set up a legal Ponzi Scheme if you wish and voila, it's legal. Technically murder (the death penalty), kidnapping (extraordinary rendition), and other government practices are illegal if committed by private citizens. That's because one of the basic tenets of government is that you surrender to the government the right to take certain actions on behalf of the citizens.

Second: I agree there are problems. Social Security is a machine, and like any machine it needs to be maintained and adjusted from time to time. There are reforms that could make the system run for the forseeable future, but there's no guarantee that even with reform there isn't some unforeseen wrinkle waiting in the wings.

I am glad we agree on the technical point regarding taxation and the error about the "My Money" approach to Social Security. I know I'd be open to privatizing and investing any portion of the Social Security piggy bank that wasn't immediately needed to pay out to beneficiaries. For example: If Social Security owes 1 billion in immediate payments to beneficiaries and collects 2 billion this year in taxes, by all means privatize and invest the left over against the future.

The question is how to privatize.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

The thrifty and industrious are doing fine despite having 15+% of their earnings bilked away to pay for that Ponzi scheme, not because of it.

That said, you're still taking a substantial portion of their production, which would serve everyone better circulating in the private sector rather than just being seized and transferred. And there would also be much more money available for families private charities to care for the amount of people who ended up broke through no fault of their own, which would likely be a fraction of those who simply failed to plan for their futures and deserve to live on the poor farm.

So now you're saying that people could be "circulating their money in the private sector" instead of saving and investing in their futures? And, according to you, it would be preferable for people to beg from charities who ends up broke.

Guess what? We've already been down that road pre-Social Security and it doesn't work.

Social Security has kept and is keeping MILLIONS OF PEOPLE out of poverty. You don't like it? Take it up with them.

Better yet, don't be a hypocrite by signing up for your "handout" from the government when your time comes.

And yet we are not advocating removing the system. Rather, we are advocating that it needs change. Simply stating that people are not in poverty because of it is meaningless. There are serious issues with SS future and they NEED to be addressed. Putting your head in the sand will help nothing.

 

[Toro]

People should be given the option of investing their SS contributions themselves. Most people wouldn't, but even removing 10% off the SS rolls changes the liability dynamics considerably.

 

[mdn2000]

The confiscation of my property is tryanny, nothing less, Social Security is pure tyranny.

Why is my hard work, my labor, my private property confiscated for the profit of others.

Social Security is beyond broke, its simple taxation, the confiscation of my labor with complete disregard to my needs.

Slavery, I work for the old, I work for the poor, I work for the lazy, I work for the ignorant, I work for those of less intelligence and ability.

Why do you people not just have me come over to your house and fix your car, put some gas in and at the same time I can give you a thousand dollars for anything you want or need to buy, it would be cheaper for me, just make it a law that Mr. John Doe must work for Tyrone Gonzales Smith, retired incompetent.

 

[rightwinger]

The confiscation of my property is tryanny, nothing less, Social Security is pure tyranny.

Why is my hard work, my labor, my private property confiscated for the profit of others.

Social Security is beyond broke, its simple taxation, the confiscation of my labor with complete disregard to my needs.

Slavery, I work for the old, I work for the poor, I work for the lazy, I work for the ignorant, I work for those of less intelligence and ability.

Why do you people not just have me come over to your house and fix your car, put some gas in and at the same time I can give you a thousand dollars for anything you want or need to buy, it would be cheaper for me, just make it a law that Mr. John Doe must work for Tyrone Gonzales Smith, retired incompetent.

Damn that Constitution!

Who the hell gave Congress the right to collect taxes!

 

[Trajan]

You can already invest your 401K or IRA in private investments. What do you gain by investing your Social Security funds?

that 401 k money is ASIDE from what they take for SSI..how about they just leave it alone completely and let us use that as we wish 40-1k, ira, annuities etc.?

 

[DaGoose]

The confiscation of my property is tryanny, nothing less, Social Security is pure tyranny.

Why is my hard work, my labor, my private property confiscated for the profit of others.

Social Security is beyond broke, its simple taxation, the confiscation of my labor with complete disregard to my needs.

Slavery, I work for the old, I work for the poor, I work for the lazy, I work for the ignorant, I work for those of less intelligence and ability.

Why do you people not just have me come over to your house and fix your car, put some gas in and at the same time I can give you a thousand dollars for anything you want or need to buy, it would be cheaper for me, just make it a law that Mr. John Doe must work for Tyrone Gonzales Smith, retired incompetent.

Of course you wouldn't DARE take part in that "tyranny" by stepping up with your hand out when your time comes, right?

 

[DaGoose]

The thrifty and industrious are doing fine despite having 15+% of their earnings bilked away to pay for that Ponzi scheme, not because of it.

That said, you're still taking a substantial portion of their production, which would serve everyone better circulating in the private sector rather than just being seized and transferred. And there would also be much more money available for families private charities to care for the amount of people who ended up broke through no fault of their own, which would likely be a fraction of those who simply failed to plan for their futures and deserve to live on the poor farm.

So now you're saying that people could be "circulating their money in the private sector" instead of saving and investing in their futures? And, according to you, it would be preferable for people to beg from charities who ends up broke.

Guess what? We've already been down that road pre-Social Security and it doesn't work.

Social Security has kept and is keeping MILLIONS OF PEOPLE out of poverty. You don't like it? Take it up with them.

Better yet, don't be a hypocrite by signing up for your "handout" from the government when your time comes.

And yet we are not advocating removing the system. Rather, we are advocating that it needs change. Simply stating that people are not in poverty because of it is meaningless. There are serious issues with SS future and they NEED to be addressed. Putting your head in the sand will help nothing.

Yet if you read back through the posts "removing the system" is exactly what many on this board is proposing to do.

Nobody argues that the system needs changes and reforms. But scrapping it is not the answer.

 

[rdean]

I once saw a right winger on TV talking about how wonderful it would be if we put SS into the stock market. The announcer asked, "What happens if they lose their money and go broke". The Republican said, "Well, those things happen. They would be broke".

 

[uscitizen]

People should be given the option of investing their SS contributions themselves. Most people wouldn't, but even removing 10% off the SS rolls changes the liability dynamics considerably.

So when those who opt out and do not save anything either get old and are starving, homeless and such or become disabled and unable to work?

 

[McDowell's]

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.

The thrifty and industrious are doing fine despite having 15+% of their earnings bilked away to pay for that Ponzi scheme, not because of it.

That said, you're still taking a substantial portion of their production, which would serve everyone better circulating in the private sector rather than just being seized and transferred. And there would also be much more money available for families private charities to care for the amount of people who ended up broke through no fault of their own, which would likely be a fraction of those who simply failed to plan for their futures and deserve to live on the poor farm.

So now you're saying that people could be "circulating their money in the private sector" instead of saving and investing in their futures? And, according to you, it would be preferable for people to beg from charities who ends up broke.

Guess what? We've already been down that road pre-Social Security and it doesn't work.

Social Security has kept and is keeping MILLIONS OF PEOPLE out of poverty. You don't like it? Take it up with them.

Better yet, don't be a hypocrite by signing up for your "handout" from the government when your time comes.

"Circulating in the private sector" is a term which very well encompasses both saving and investing...

 

[Oddball]

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.

The thrifty and industrious are doing fine despite having 15+% of their earnings bilked away to pay for that Ponzi scheme, not because of it.

That said, you're still taking a substantial portion of their production, which would serve everyone better circulating in the private sector rather than just being seized and transferred. And there would also be much more money available for families private charities to care for the amount of people who ended up broke through no fault of their own, which would likely be a fraction of those who simply failed to plan for their futures and deserve to live on the poor farm.

So now you're saying that people could be "circulating their money in the private sector" instead of saving and investing in their futures? And, according to you, it would be preferable for people to beg from charities who ends up broke.

Guess what? We've already been down that road pre-Social Security and it doesn't work.

Social Security has kept and is keeping MILLIONS OF PEOPLE out of poverty. You don't like it? Take it up with them.

Better yet, don't be a hypocrite by signing up for your "handout" from the government when your time comes.

When money is saved and invested, it circulates in the economy creating more wealth, you economic rube.

Actions and inactions have consequences.

Your welfare program rewards the shortsighted and punishes the thrifty and industrious.

And your leftist boilerplate claim that SS has kept people out of poverty is entirely unprovable.

 

[DaGoose]

The thrifty and industrious are doing fine despite having 15+% of their earnings bilked away to pay for that Ponzi scheme, not because of it.

That said, you're still taking a substantial portion of their production, which would serve everyone better circulating in the private sector rather than just being seized and transferred. And there would also be much more money available for families private charities to care for the amount of people who ended up broke through no fault of their own, which would likely be a fraction of those who simply failed to plan for their futures and deserve to live on the poor farm.

So now you're saying that people could be "circulating their money in the private sector" instead of saving and investing in their futures? And, according to you, it would be preferable for people to beg from charities who ends up broke.

Guess what? We've already been down that road pre-Social Security and it doesn't work.

Social Security has kept and is keeping MILLIONS OF PEOPLE out of poverty. You don't like it? Take it up with them.

Better yet, don't be a hypocrite by signing up for your "handout" from the government when your time comes.

When money is saved and invested, it circulates in the economy creating more wealth, you economic rube.

Actions and inactions have consequences.

Your welfare program rewards the shortsighted and punishes the thrifty and industrious.

And your leftist boilerplate claim that SS has kept people out of poverty is entirely unprovable.

And of course you'll be hypocritically standing in the government line with your hand out for your "welfare handout" when your time comes, won't you?

 

[uscitizen]

The thrifty and industrious are doing fine despite having 15+% of their earnings bilked away to pay for that Ponzi scheme, not because of it.

That said, you're still taking a substantial portion of their production, which would serve everyone better circulating in the private sector rather than just being seized and transferred. And there would also be much more money available for families private charities to care for the amount of people who ended up broke through no fault of their own, which would likely be a fraction of those who simply failed to plan for their futures and deserve to live on the poor farm.

So now you're saying that people could be "circulating their money in the private sector" instead of saving and investing in their futures? And, according to you, it would be preferable for people to beg from charities who ends up broke.

Guess what? We've already been down that road pre-Social Security and it doesn't work.

Social Security has kept and is keeping MILLIONS OF PEOPLE out of poverty. You don't like it? Take it up with them.

Better yet, don't be a hypocrite by signing up for your "handout" from the government when your time comes.

When money is saved and invested, it circulates in the economy creating more wealth, you economic rube.

Actions and inactions have consequences.

Your welfare program rewards the shortsighted and punishes the thrifty and industrious.

And your leftist boilerplate claim that SS has kept people out of poverty is entirely unprovable.

Ues but as we recently found out that invested money does not necessarailly make money for the investor.
and Enron was such a great investment

 

[Oddball]

And of course you'll be hypocritically standing in the government line with your hand out for your "welfare handout" when your time comes, won't you?

Most likely scenario is that it either won't be there or inflation will make it worthless by the time it's my turn.

But this isn't about me, deflectasaurus rex.