Social Security Privatize?

[archangel]

Okay guys and gals this is going to be a hot button issue this year...so here goes just one mans opinion:It does not take rocket science to figure this one out...Leave it alone...It was intended to be a safety net for the elderly..it has been raped and abused by politicians for uses other than it's intention...Right now there is a 3.3 ratio of contributors to payee's...hummm...it was 16 to one previously..what happened? Well try outsourcing of jobs for a start...then add importing of illegal immigration workers to the mix and walla we have a problem...what is the answer?Well we close our borders tightly...punish corporations who outsource and hire illegal immigrants for low wages...punish politicians who rape the coffer for programs the SSA money was not intended for and call in the IOU's placed in the system for the illegal withdrawl...I like and am satisfied with GW's anti terrorist war,however he is way off base on this one...what say you?

Please go to www.lootingsocialsecurity.com

 

[Annie]

Gee, I don't know for now I'm reading:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-1.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1050363

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/1999/chile.htm

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/mo20020625.shtml

 

[Fmr jarhead]

I think offering options for investing my hard earned cash is the best way to do it. I know I have a moral obligation to continue to support the social security system for those that are over 55, but those that are younger need to take responsibility for themselves, and use their own money (the FICA money taken out of your check) and decide how to invest it for themselves. If you chose to leave it in a government run program, then that is fine, but if you chose other options, then you have a greater chance of success.

Here is an example of how it will succeed:

Social Security Example:
Joe is your average American. He makes $7 per hour and works a 40-hour week for 52 weeks a year.

$7/hr x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = $14,560/yr.

Currently, all workers are paying 15% of their income into Social Security. President Bush is proposing that people be allowed to take 2% of that and invest it to help build their retirement. In our example, 2% is to $24.27 per month.

$14,560/yr. x .02 = $291.02/yr. ($24.27 a month)

Take that $24.27 a month and invest it into a decent growth stock mutual fund at an average of 12% interest per year, and you would have $947,815 at retirement.

From age 20-70 = 50 yrs. = $947,815

At retirement, you could take 8% of the interest per year and live on it. You could leave the other 4% to account for inflation and still be better off than when you were working.

Retirement Income at 8% = $6318 a month

Now if you make more than $7 per hour, you are able to invest more.

$30,000/yr salary = $2 million at retirement - $12,600/month
$45,000/yr salary = $3 million at retirement - $18,900/month
$60,000/yr salary = $4 million at retirement - $25,370/month
$75,000/yr salary = $5 million at retirement - $31,000/month

In this example, it is easy to see that you could enjoy a higher standard of living after retirement if you were allowed to control a small portion of your money that goes to Social Security from each paycheck

ow much is Social Security going to pay? figure on less than $2000 per month for your average wage earning American.

 

[dilloduck]

1. Democrats are going to say no to anything Bush proposes.

2 Democrats want that big wad of money laying around if they ever return to power.

3 Democrats do NOT want people to be able to keep their own money. They want to redistribute it like the socialists they are.

 

[Merlin1047]

Screw social security.

Give people back the money paid in by them, their employers and a reasonable interest rate. Dump the whole damn program.

It's time to go back to the concept that people should take care of themselves. It's time we stop going to the government with our hands out. It's time to get the government out of our lives (as much as possible).

If there are old folks who are going to starve due to lack of funds, we have programs in place to care for them - it's called welfare. If you think about it, that's all that social security is anyway - welfare in disguise. Once a person draws out more money than he or she would be entitled to based on what was paid in plus interest, then they are getting welfare - period.

So I'm of the opinion that we can scrap social security, let people manage their own lives and let those who can't apply for welfare.

If the government wants to get our from under the yoke of under funded social security entitlement programs, then let people manage their own savings in the form of IRAs and other retirement saving programs. Make these savings programs not tax deferred, but tax exempt up to a specified limit - say 1 million. People participating in these self-directed programs would understand that they would never be entitled to collect social security. That way the social security program could be gradually phased out or at least substantially reduced.

 

[Merlin1047]

1. Democrats are going to say no to anything Bush proposes.

2 Democrats want that big wad of money laying around if they ever return to power.

3 Democrats do NOT want people to be able to keep their own money. They want to redistribute it like the socialists they are.

Exactly right, Dillo.

The whole thing pisses me off to no end. All my working life I have lived below my means, saved, invested and put funds aside for the future. During that time I have paid at or near the maximum into FICA for nearly forty years. Now as I near retirement, it appears that the wife and I should have a pretty comfortable income. But now the egg-sucking liberals come into the equation. They think that because I have not been an irresponsible spendthrift, because I saved and invested, because I have accrued sufficient assets to support myself, that somehow I am no longer entitled to the money paid into FICA by me and my employers. Somehow they have decided that I should be "means tested" and if I have other income, then they are free to steal MY money and redistribute it as they see fit to people who are not entitled to it.

The liberal attitude is totally infuriating. Had I been an idiot who spent money faster than I made it and reached my retirement age without a pot to piss in, the libs would come running to me with wheel barrow loads of money. But because I COULD get along without social security, libs think that I'm not entitled to it. Dammit, that's MY money. I paid it into FICA and I'm entitled to get it back - even if I had more money than Bill Gates.

 

[nakedemperor]

Without social security, how many seniors do you think could pay for housing, food, and prescription drugs? On a welfare check alone? That's just not likely, as I see it. Cutting the program entirely would be disasterous, considering how high medical coverage is these days. I think I saw medical bills were the peoples' least favorable issue with the president, and for good reason. We have a responsibility to our elderly. They're part of our country's community, and shouldn't be faulted for not generating enough income to provide shelter, food, and medicine for themselves for the remainder of their non-capital-generating lives.

 

[dilloduck]

Without social security, how many seniors do you think could pay for housing, food, and prescription drugs? On a welfare check alone? That's just not likely, as I see it. Cutting the program entirely would be disasterous, considering how high medical coverage is these days. I think I saw medical bills were the peoples' least favorable issue with the president, and for good reason. We have a responsibility to our elderly. They're part of our country's community, and shouldn't be faulted for not generating enough income to provide shelter, food, and medicine for themselves for the remainder of their non-capital-generating lives.

No one is suggesting that----it's a fix-not a decapitation

 

[nakedemperor]

No one is suggesting that----it's a fix-not a decapitation

Screw social security.

Give people back the money paid in by them, their employers and a reasonable interest rate. Dump the whole damn program.

.

 

[dilloduck]

.

merlins quote was in anger at the screwed up system and NOT what Bush is proposing . Read the speech again.

 

[no1tovote4]

Without social security, how many seniors do you think could pay for housing, food, and prescription drugs? On a welfare check alone? That's just not likely, as I see it. Cutting the program entirely would be disasterous, considering how high medical coverage is these days. I think I saw medical bills were the peoples' least favorable issue with the president, and for good reason. We have a responsibility to our elderly. They're part of our country's community, and shouldn't be faulted for not generating enough income to provide shelter, food, and medicine for themselves for the remainder of their non-capital-generating lives.

Before SS, those who did not save for their retirement would live with their extended family, those who did not have that to fall back on lived in olf-folks homes run by charities.

The SS system cut short the extended family and gave people an excuse to relegate those who deserve respect to retirement homes run by people who are there to make money and give little care to those they are paid to help. Our society lost much wisdom and understanding in one fell swoop. People were ever more willing to dump their old bones onto the trash heap of history and let the youngest people live without their wisdom.

SS has done more to tear apart the US as one society than almost any other Government Program. It is a sham that tears us apart and helps very little.

IT IS NOT WORTH THE COST!

 

[archangel]

I think offering options for investing my hard earned cash is the best way to do it. I know I have a moral obligation to continue to support the social security system for those that are over 55, but those that are younger need to take responsibility for themselves, and use their own money (the FICA money taken out of your check) and decide how to invest it for themselves. If you chose to leave it in a government run program, then that is fine, but if you chose other options, then you have a greater chance of success.

Here is an example of how it will succeed:

Social Security Example:
Joe is your average American. He makes $7 per hour and works a 40-hour week for 52 weeks a year.

$7/hr x 40 hrs x 52 weeks = $14,560/yr.

Currently, all workers are paying 15% of their income into Social Security. President Bush is proposing that people be allowed to take 2% of that and invest it to help build their retirement. In our example, 2% is to $24.27 per month.

$14,560/yr. x .02 = $291.02/yr. ($24.27 a month)

Take that $24.27 a month and invest it into a decent growth stock mutual fund at an average of 12% interest per year, and you would have $947,815 at retirement.

From age 20-70 = 50 yrs. = $947,815

At retirement, you could take 8% of the interest per year and live on it. You could leave the other 4% to account for inflation and still be better off than when you were working.

Retirement Income at 8% = $6318 a month

Now if you make more than $7 per hour, you are able to invest more.

$30,000/yr salary = $2 million at retirement - $12,600/month
$45,000/yr salary = $3 million at retirement - $18,900/month
$60,000/yr salary = $4 million at retirement - $25,370/month
$75,000/yr salary = $5 million at retirement - $31,000/month

In this example, it is easy to see that you could enjoy a higher standard of living after retirement if you were allowed to control a small portion of your money that goes to Social Security from each paycheck

ow much is Social Security going to pay? figure on less than $2000 per month for your average wage earning American.

Fmr jarhead...now that is very interesting, if we lived in a perfect world I'm sure this math would work,however it is not very realistic given all the problems of late in the Wall Street investment world...Also people can invest that $24.00 per month on their own and still keep their SSA safety net...
I am having a hard time understanding the comments in here...SSA is not a welfare program it is a low cost retirement plan...if ya all are confused I'm sorry...but can you guarantee investing in stocks and bonds will result in a great retirement payday...I think not and you cannot also...Stocks are a crap shoot and you can lose your ass very quickly to say the least...why are you so against a safe egg nest as a supplement to gambling at the stock circus....

 

[no1tovote4]

Fmr jarhead...now that is very interesting, if we lived in a perfect world I'm sure this math would work,however it is not very realistic given all the problems of late in the Wall Street investment world...Also people can invest that $24.00 per month on their own and still keep their SSA safety net...
I am having a hard time understanding the comments in here...SSA is not a welfare program it is a low cost retirement plan...if ya all are confused I'm sorry...but can you guarantee investing in stocks and bonds will result in a great retirement payday...I think not and you cannot also...Stocks are a crap shoot and you can lose your ass very quickly to say the least...why are you so against a safe egg nest as a supplement to gambling at the stock circus....

Or I can keep trusting SS and lose my ass because I didn't prepare for my future and the Government will end up killing this program before my ass retires as it goes into bankruptcy.

Oh and BTW with the Pres. Plan the safe nest-egg is still there just a small portion could be put into the private accounts. Why are you against a program that allows those that are younger to safely invest in conservative private funds that will allow them to actually keep a tiny portion the money they pay into this horrid system? If they were a retirement account, as you are trying to convince us, you would be able to pass the money on to your children. You were fooled into thinking this welfare program was a retirement account.

 

[Merlin1047]

merlins quote was in anger at the screwed up system and NOT what Bush is proposing . Read the speech again.

Yes, I'm a little hot on this subject, but I'm dead damn serious about doing away with social security as it exists today.

The government can still dictate that a certain minimum amount of each person's pay, along with employer contributions, goes into an escrow account. The minimum would be mandatory. In addition to the minimum, a person would be entitled to contribute an additional percentage up to a specified maximum. That money would be permanently tax exempt. The account would be managed by the individual. Again the government can approve the investment vehicles which are allowable in order to prevent dimwits from being ripped off by hucksters. The obvious advantage of this is that each individual OWNS his or her personal social security trust fund. The libs in government CANNOT come along and steal it from you to finance some of their stupid social experiments or to buy votes.

Each individual would be able to select investment or savings vehicles depending on his tolerance for risk. When it comes time to retire, the money can be withdrawn at a specified percentage rate of the total each year. Any balance remaining when the owner dies belongs to his estate and goes to his heirs.

As far as taking care of seniors who are poverty stricken - that is a job for welfare programs, not social security. I never suggested that we should abandon senior citizens. That was inferred by NE who continues to exhibit a reading comprehension handicap brought on by his fuzzy liberal vision.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Fmr jarhead...now that is very interesting, if we lived in a perfect world I'm sure this math would work,however it is not very realistic given all the problems of late in the Wall Street investment world...Also people can invest that $24.00 per month on their own and still keep their SSA safety net...
I am having a hard time understanding the comments in here...SSA is not a welfare program it is a low cost retirement plan...if ya all are confused I'm sorry...but can you guarantee investing in stocks and bonds will result in a great retirement payday...I think not and you cannot also...Stocks are a crap shoot and you can lose your ass very quickly to say the least...why are you so against a safe egg nest as a supplement to gambling at the stock circus....

From January 1926 through December 2004 the annualized total return for the S&P 500 was 10.46% per year. The dividend component consists of 41.28% of the return.

I would rather take my chances with the 10% average return from an S&P account, or even a marginal 5% return on a long term bond account than have no option with the Social Security debacle that is in place, now.

Lose you ass? History doesn't support your position when looking at a broad index....I doubt you will find any 30 year period where an index has lost money. Should I research it for you, or do you want to keep your head in the sand?

 

[archangel]

Okay guys ya all blasted me...now answer my question..I responded but it disappeared(pun)If you and GW's proposal is so great and guaranteed...then why hasn't the government invested the SSA retirement money in Wall Street?humm...maybe they know something we don't..if so I should be receiving some $6200.00 per month rather than the $872.00 average...get real pipe dreams are fun...but not realistic...if ya all want to give up your safety zone...so be it...but let the rest of us enjoy what little we have...lol..
:chillpill

 

[no1tovote4]

Okay guys ya all blasted me...now answer my question..I responded but it disappeared(pun)If you and GW's proposal is so great and guaranteed...then why hasn't the government invested the SSA retirement money in Wall Street?humm...maybe they know something we don't..if so I should be receiving some $6200.00 per month rather than the $872.00 average...get real pipe dreams are fun...but not realistic...if ya all want to give up your safety zone...so be it...but let the rest of us enjoy what little we have...lol..
:chillpill

Because they spend it on Government Programs. Where have you been all your life? Only on college campuses? The Government does not hold the money you put into SS in some account somewhere they spend the fricking money on everything except SS robbing from your future. Since they do not have the money to put into the stock market they simply cannot.

GW takes a very small portion and allows you to put it into accounts that are actually yours gauranteeing a small amount of the money will be there for your retirement, rather than robbing Peter to pay Paul you will actually have access to some of your money making this into an actual retirement account rather than a simple welfare program.

 

[archangel]

From January 1926 through December 2004 the annualized total return for the S&P 500 was 10.46% per year. The dividend component consists of 41.28% of the return.

I would rather take my chances with the 10% average return from an S&P account, or even a marginal 5% return on a long term bond account than have no option with the Social Security debacle that is in place, now.

Lose you ass? History doesn't support your position when looking at a broad index....I doubt you will find any 30 year period where an index has lost money. Should I research it for you, or do you want to keep your head in the sand?

:coffee3: Geez...History does not support my theory...hummm! And the latest history of the Wall Street Tycoons does...amazing...Good Lord dude...I would hate to have been in your platoon...fantasy is fun...but can get ya hurt...just a observation from a Vietnam era vet U.S.Army 1964-1968...7th Cav rocks..even if we did share Custers Last Stand...lol... :crutch:

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Okay guys ya all blasted me...now answer my question..I responded but it disappeared(pun)If you and GW's proposal is so great and guaranteed...then why hasn't the government invested the SSA retirement money in Wall Street?humm...maybe they know something we don't..if so I should be receiving some $6200.00 per month rather than the $872.00 average...get real pipe dreams are fun...but not realistic...if ya all want to give up your safety zone...so be it...but let the rest of us enjoy what little we have...lol..
:chillpill

Your position sounds like one of someone who does not invest themselves, due to not knowing anything about how investing works.

It is not a bad thing, just not a strong position to make an arguement.

Do you currently make any investments, or 401K contributions? If not, you should be very afraid that there will be no safety net for you...unless you are over 55, and it will have no effect on you, at all.

Those over 55 will not be affected by any changes that are undertaken.

 

[no1tovote4]

:coffee3: Geez...History does not support my theory...hummm! And the latest history of the Wall Street Tycoons does...amazing...Good Lord dude...I would hate to have been in your platoon...fantasy is fun...but can get ya hurt...just a observation from a Vietnam era vet U.S.Army 1964-1968...7th Cav rocks..even if we did share Custers Last Stand...lol... :crutch:

What happened there is not comparable to what this program allows. Conservative investments are well spread out, one corp or two going down in flames could never destroy your account and likely would never hurt it.

Shoot even just putting the money in the Bank would give you a better return than SS does. Retirement account? BS!