Should We Have the Right to Opt Out of Social Security?

[KMAN]

I say yes. After all what are the chances that I have at age 37 to get any Social Security money when I retire.

 

[sealybobo]

Sure, but you still have to pay in.

Just like you can home school your kids but you still have to pay school taxes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sure, but you still have to pay in.

This is pretty much what we have now. Younger people have to pay in and are unlikely to see any benefit from that.

Yes, you should be able to choose to opt out.

 

[midcan5]

If you don't agree with the laws and rules of the nation please move. You don't have to pay if you aren't here. Bye.

PS SS is one of the wonderful things we do as citizens. Keep doing wonderful things and let the greedy move someplace where they will be happy.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

 

[Article 15]

No but I'll tell you what I, as a young American, would be willing to do and sacrifice in the name of the greater good.

I would be willing to pay into the system for the next 20 years and forgo my benefits when I retire as part of a plan to keep checks going out to those currently receiving and soon to be receiving SS but with a clear path to ween us off SS and eventually end it. After that I would no longer have to pay into the system and use the money as I see fit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you don't agree with the laws and rules of the nation please move. You don't have to pay if you aren't here. Bye.

So there should be no debate about our laws just complete and utter reverence for our leaders in their infinite wisdom? Utterly ridiculous.

 

[sealybobo]

No but I'll tell you what I, as a young American, would be willing to do and sacrifice in the name of the greater good.

I would be willing to pay into the system for the next 20 years and forgo my benefits when I retire as part of a plan to keep checks going out to those currently receiving and soon to be receiving SS but with a clear path to ween us off SS and eventually end it. After that I would no longer have to pay into the system and use the money as I see fit.

Not a bad idea. Pay half to SS and half to yourself for 20 years, and then after that, all of your savings go to you.

 

[sealybobo]

If you don't agree with the laws and rules of the nation please move. You don't have to pay if you aren't here. Bye.

So there should be no debate about our laws just complete and utter reverence for our leaders in their infinite wisdom? Utterly ridiculous.

Midcam is probably mocking you because what he/she said is the same kind of shit you guys would tell us when we complained last year.

America, Love it or leave it!

And now I will tell you that you are just being a whiner. Quit complaining that the man is trying to hold you back.

The only person holding you back is you.

Who is responsible for you? You or Obama?

Anyone can make it in America. We told you that Bush made it harder for people to make it, and you argued with us. Now we see we were right and you were wrong. But so now you are telling us Obama is going to ruin America. And you said the same thing about Clinton. So really, why would we listen to you?

What, do you feel entitled to something?

Do you want to spread the wealth? Are you a socialist? Man when I think of all the lame GOP arguments that you get from Rush/O'Reilly/Hannity, it really cracks me up. Its like 100 of you all get the same marching orders on what to say each day. What time to you get your orders from Rush? Or does Fox News tell you what to say each day at around 5am?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you don't agree with the laws and rules of the nation please move. You don't have to pay if you aren't here. Bye.

So there should be no debate about our laws just complete and utter reverence for our leaders in their infinite wisdom? Utterly ridiculous.

Midcam is probably mocking you because what he/she said is the same kind of shit you guys would tell us when we complained last year.

America, Love it or leave it!

And now I will tell you that you are just being a whiner. Quit complaining that the man is trying to hold you back.

The only person holding you back is you.

Who is responsible for you? You or Obama?

Anyone can make it in America. We told you that Bush made it harder for people to make it, and you argued with us. Now we see we were right and you were wrong. But so now you are telling us Obama is going to ruin America. And you said the same thing about Clinton. So really, why would we listen to you?

What, do you feel entitled to something?

Do you want to spread the wealth? Are you a socialist? Man when I think of all the lame GOP arguments that you get from Rush/O'Reilly/Hannity, it really cracks me up. Its like 100 of you all get the same marching orders on what to say each day. What time to you get your orders from Rush? Or does Fox News tell you what to say each day at around 5am?

I would never and have never told anyone to "love it, or leave it." It's utterly nonsensical and against American ideals.

Those who force me to pay my money into a ponzi scheme that I am going to see no return or any kind of benefit at all from is somebody else holding me back. Yes, I do feel entitled to the money that I earned.

 

[auditor0007]

No but I'll tell you what I, as a young American, would be willing to do and sacrifice in the name of the greater good.

I would be willing to pay into the system for the next 20 years and forgo my benefits when I retire as part of a plan to keep checks going out to those currently receiving and soon to be receiving SS but with a clear path to ween us off SS and eventually end it. After that I would no longer have to pay into the system and use the money as I see fit.

First of all, you might be financially able to pull it off, but the vast majority of people your age and younger could not. Secondly, if everyone opts out, someone still has to pay benefits to those who are counting on those benefits. And last of all, if we allow people to opt out, what we'll end up with is a bunch of retirees with zero income and the government will end up coming in to support them anyway, because we're not going to let them starve in the streets.

The bottom line is that we cannot just shut down SS. It is a decent program that makes sense. What does not make sense is the fact that we have not raised the retirement age since its inception. People are collecting too soon. If we raised the retirement age to 70 or 71, a great deal of pressure would be taken off and most likely we could fund SS without increasing taxes dramatically. The same holds true for Medicare.

People need to work longer now because they live longer. If they want to retire at an earlier age, then they should do it on their own savings. SS is the greatest safety net we have, but it is covering Americans for too many years. That is the basic problem.

The only issue that needs to be addressed is the fact that companies don't like retaining older workers, at least in many industries. One thing that should be looked at is making it easier for employers to reduce the salaries of older workers, assuming there are justifiable reasons for doing so, as in a lower capacity to produce.

Our society has changed a great deal in the last fifty years. Life expectancy has increased by almost nine years. There are so many solutions available, but nobody wants to give anything up. Everyone thinks they have a right to this and that, but in truth, they only have a right to what is available.

 

[billyerock]

I say yes. After all what are the chances that I have at age 37 to get any Social Security money when I retire.

most people like you don't understand how Social security works ... if people started choosing to opted out, heres is what would happen ... the people, right now, that are receiving Social security , right now, would be effected ... you see the money you are paying now pays for the retirees now ... the problem with social security is the government, thanks to President Johnson, put it into the general fund .... an then now can take as much as they need ... now It appears here that you might be a republican, because of your Idea here ... here was AL Gores Idea, when he was running for president in 2000 ... remember the Locked box Idea he ??? bush wouldn't answer Gores challenge ??? there's a reason he would answer thats ... that's where a lot of emergency appropriation money comes from ... Bush didn't want that because he new he wouldn't have instance money to pay for his war... if Al Gore had been elected one of his campaign ideas was to take social security out of the general fund an pout it back where it was... now after saying this if we take the Social security money out of the general fund ... everybody who retires will have enough money to retire on an probably pay for medicare an medicaid ... so far there has been no attempt by both parties to take it out of the general fund... if people start opting out then you will have a huge problem with people who are retired now

 

[billyerock]

I say yes. After all what are the chances that I have at age 37 to get any Social Security money when I retire.

most people like you don't understand how Social security works ... if people started choosing to opted out, heres is what would happen ... the people, right now, that are receiving Social security , right now, would be effected ... you see the money you are paying now pays for the retirees now ... the problem with social security is the government, thanks to President Johnson, who put it into the general fund .... they now can take as much as they need ... now It appears here that you might be a republican, because of your Idea here ... here was AL Gores Idea, when he was running for president in 2000 ... remember the Locked box Idea ??? bush wouldn't answer Gores challenge ??? there's a reason he would answer ... that's where a lot of emergency appropriation money comes from ... Bush didn't want that because he new he wouldn't have instance money to pay for his war... if Al Gore had been elected, one of his campaign promises was to take social security out of the general fund an put it back where it belongs... now after saying this if we take the Social security money out of the general fund ... everybody who retires will have enough money to retire on .... probably pay for medicare an medicaid ... so far there has been no attempt by both parties to take it out of the general fund... if people start opting out then you will have a huge problem with people who are retired now

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Agree that some structural changes may make sense, but it will be a hot debate and fraught with danger for most politicians. At this stage I do not believe there is a practical way to either end the program or to allow people to opt out - as the program is now structured.

The other aspect is whether the money you paid in will be there. Right now, Congress can spend it as operating revenue on things other than SS. Granted there are other reasons your nest egg may not be there when you are 65 or whatever, but...

Here is an article on this from my blog:

Where Is My Social Security Nestegg
Spent, by Washington politicians. There is no “trust fund”.
Is everyone in the Congress a political criminal? Certainly not. The majority, however, certainly is. It takes a majority to approve spending every year. Read the rest of this entry »

 

[robmccar88]

ya know, after the crash of 01 the option of ss going in the stock market didn't make sense to me. After the current meltdown I'm not quite sure how anyone can make the argument it's a good idea now. Every 7-10 years there will be a crash, history tells us this.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Indeed it does. Here is a suggestion, raise the SS interest rate to 5% (it is 1% now) and place the "fund" in US long bonds?

Of course, now that so many people are not working and SS revenues have dropped off, whatever the politicians left in the system will be consumed shortly. This begs the question (and there are others of this type) are we spending on the right things.

Not by my lights.

 

[KMAN]

If you don't agree with the laws and rules of the nation please move. You don't have to pay if you aren't here. Bye.

PS SS is one of the wonderful things we do as citizens. Keep doing wonderful things and let the greedy move someplace where they will be happy.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith

Are you just here to start fights?

I know this may be too difficult for you to understand but like it or not, we will reach a point where the number of working people will not be able to support the number of retirees... I assume you believe that we should give up to 100% of our pay to Social Security if that is what it takes to support retirees....

Why not allow people who will not get these benefits to invest money for themselves?

 

[KMAN]

I guess I should've rephrased the question... You obviously can't just opt out without another option.

I am saying can we find another retirement plan instead of SS? Why settle for this little amount you get when you retire when you can invest in the stock market and make more on your money? I know, I know, the stock market is down... FYI - When you are close to retirement you move your 401k from risky stocks to something with a lower but more stable return.

 

[007]

So there should be no debate about our laws just complete and utter reverence for our leaders in their infinite wisdom? Utterly ridiculous.

Midcam is probably mocking you because what he/she said is the same kind of shit you guys would tell us when we complained last year.

America, Love it or leave it!

And now I will tell you that you are just being a whiner. Quit complaining that the man is trying to hold you back.

The only person holding you back is you.

Who is responsible for you? You or Obama?

Anyone can make it in America. We told you that Bush made it harder for people to make it, and you argued with us. Now we see we were right and you were wrong. But so now you are telling us Obama is going to ruin America. And you said the same thing about Clinton. So really, why would we listen to you?

What, do you feel entitled to something?

Do you want to spread the wealth? Are you a socialist? Man when I think of all the lame GOP arguments that you get from Rush/O'Reilly/Hannity, it really cracks me up. Its like 100 of you all get the same marching orders on what to say each day. What time to you get your orders from Rush? Or does Fox News tell you what to say each day at around 5am?

I would never and have never told anyone to "love it, or leave it." It's utterly nonsensical and against American ideals.

Those who force me to pay my money into a ponzi scheme that I am going to see no return or any kind of benefit at all from is somebody else holding me back. Yes, I do feel entitled to the money that I earned.

Yes you are right KK. It's not only money YOU earned... it's YOUR money. YOU paid it in. YOU should get it BACK. SS was a very efficient running program, right up until our illustrious politicians saw a wad of money that they didn't have their filthy, greedy, fucking FINGERS in. So they raided it. They took the money and left worthless IOU's in there. Now that they've pilfered it all, it's in trouble, just like EVERYTHING the damn government gets involved in.

I think you should be able to opt out. But if you do, you should get BACK every darn PENNY you already PUT IN! Then do with it what you please.

 

[WorldAHope]

SS is a small percentage of wages which could be turned back into non-deductible wages,
but that would create a severe deficit in the SS Trust Fund.
We also coud make the S find be more diversified, as ar many 401k programs, with a mixed family of investments and Mutual Funds from which to select. Major headacjes. We'd hear a lot of complaining.
SS investments in government securities has been a major stabilizing force in our economy for decades. It is a huge fund, has a lot of influence, and is a foundation of many securities.
Municipal bonds, GNMA's, FNMA's, Pension Funds...relatively low yielding investments, but a sure safe source and growth. Low risk. Dull. Unremarkable.
Like that wall of cinder blocks that holds up teh walls of your house.

IF we want to make SS a HIGH YIELD investment, we are saying we want to take on added RISK.
Think about 2008 when you say that. Taste 2008 in your mouth. 30+% loss in the book value of equity investments. Far more lost by specialized funds.
Read this partial post - outlining another yummy gooey aromatic poop bon-bon placed on top of the gigantic turd pie that is the lingerring legacy of the Bush administration:

Pension insurer shifted to stocks - The Boston Globe
Pension insurer shifted to stocks
Concern increases as losses mount; Failing plans could overwhelm agency
By Michael Kranish
Globe Staff / March 30, 2009

WASHINGTON - Just months before the start of last year's stock market collapse, the federal agency that insures the retirement funds of 44 million Americans departed from its conservative investment strategy and decided to put much of its $64 billion insurance fund into stocks.

Switching from a heavy reliance on bonds, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation decided to pour billions of dollars into speculative investments such as stocks in emerging foreign markets, real estate, and private equity funds.

The agency refused to say how much of the new investment strategy has been implemented or how the fund has fared during the downturn. The agency would only say that its fund was down 6.5 percent - and all of its stock-related investments were down 23 percent - as of last Sept. 30, the end of its fiscal year. But that was before most of the recent stock market decline and just before the investment switch was scheduled to begin in earnest.

No statistics on the fund's subsequent performance were released.

Nonetheless, analysts expressed concern that large portions of the trust fund might have been lost at a time when many private pension plans are suffering major losses. The guarantee fund would be the only way to cover the plans if their companies go into bankruptcy.

"The truth is, this could be huge," said Zvi Bodie, a Boston University finance professor who in 2002 advised the agency to rely almost entirely on bonds. "This has the potential to be another several hundred billion dollars. If the auto companies go under, they have huge unfunded liabilities" in pension plans that would be passed on to the agency.

In addition, Peter Orszag, head of the White House Office of Management and Budget, has "serious concerns" about the agency, according to an Obama administration spokesman.

Last year, as director of the Congressional Budget Office, Orszag expressed alarm that the agency was "investing a greater share of its assets in risky securities," which he said would make it "more likely to experience a decline in the value of its portfolio during an economic downturn the point at which it is most likely to have to assume responsibility for a larger number of underfunded pension plans."

However, Charles E.F. Millard, the former agency director who implemented the strategy until the Bush administration departed on Jan. 20, dismissed such concerns. Millard, a former managing director of Lehman Brothers, said flatly that "the new investment policy is not riskier than the old one."

But Bodie, the BU professor who advised the agency, questioned why a government entity that is supposed to be insuring pension funds should be investing in stocks and real estate at all. Bodie once likened the agency's strategy to a company that insures against hurricane damage and then invests the premiums in beachfront property.

Since he issued that warning, he said, the agency has gone even more aggressively into stocks, which he called "totally crazy."

The agency's action has also been questioned by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, which concluded that the strategy "will likely carry more risk" than projected by the agency. "We felt they weren't acknowledging the increased risk," said Barbara D. Bovbjerg, the GAO's director of Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues.

Analysts also believe the strategy would not have been approved if the government had foreseen the precipitous decline in the stock market.

Now, they warn about a "perfect storm" scenario in which the agency's fund plummets in value just as more companies go into bankruptcy and pass their pension responsibilities onto the insurance fund. Many analysts say it is inevitable that the agency will face significantly increased liabilities in coming months.

"The worst case scenario is coming to pass," said Mark Ruloff, a fellow at the Pension Finance Institute, an independent group that monitors pensions. He said the agency leaders "fail to realize that they are an insurer of pension plans and therefore should be investing differently than the risk their participants are taking."

 

[Old Rocks]

No but I'll tell you what I, as a young American, would be willing to do and sacrifice in the name of the greater good.

I would be willing to pay into the system for the next 20 years and forgo my benefits when I retire as part of a plan to keep checks going out to those currently receiving and soon to be receiving SS but with a clear path to ween us off SS and eventually end it. After that I would no longer have to pay into the system and use the money as I see fit.

First of all, you might be financially able to pull it off, but the vast majority of people your age and younger could not. Secondly, if everyone opts out, someone still has to pay benefits to those who are counting on those benefits. And last of all, if we allow people to opt out, what we'll end up with is a bunch of retirees with zero income and the government will end up coming in to support them anyway, because we're not going to let them starve in the streets.

The bottom line is that we cannot just shut down SS. It is a decent program that makes sense. What does not make sense is the fact that we have not raised the retirement age since its inception. People are collecting too soon. If we raised the retirement age to 70 or 71, a great deal of pressure would be taken off and most likely we could fund SS without increasing taxes dramatically. The same holds true for Medicare.

People need to work longer now because they live longer. If they want to retire at an earlier age, then they should do it on their own savings. SS is the greatest safety net we have, but it is covering Americans for too many years. That is the basic problem.

The only issue that needs to be addressed is the fact that companies don't like retaining older workers, at least in many industries. One thing that should be looked at is making it easier for employers to reduce the salaries of older workers, assuming there are justifiable reasons for doing so, as in a lower capacity to produce.

Our society has changed a great deal in the last fifty years. Life expectancy has increased by almost nine years. There are so many solutions available, but nobody wants to give anything up. Everyone thinks they have a right to this and that, but in truth, they only have a right to what is available.

While I agree with most of what you say, the retirement at 70 makes sense if you have a job that is not physical. I have worked in heavy industry most of my life as an industrial millwright. I am very fortunate to still have my health at 65, most of my peers in this trade are out with bad backs or other injuries by my age. Most of the people I work with in a steel mill are physically wore out by 65. If you are going to raise the retirement age, you have better make an allowance for these kinds of very neccessary jobs.