Should social security be privatized?

[Clarkie1]

It's a new century. Many are saying social security needs reform. Would you support being able to invest part or all of your social security in a tax-exempt investment fund of your choice?

[unblock]

1. privatizing social security is plan to destroy it, plain and simple

if you want to invest your retirement in an investment fund of your choice, open an ira.

social security exists so you have something when all your investments go bad. that is exactly why it was created, because peoples' investments went bad in 1929 and suddenly people who worked all their lives and invested normally were out on the streets.

the WHOLE POINT of social security is to have a guaranteed minimum income in retirement that is NOT at risk from unfortunate investments.

[Warpy]

4. Not only that

but social security was also a program for women. They outlived their husbands, and the husband's pension generally died with him. They were then forced to find other means of survival, either a short life on the street or a longer and miserable life with grown children and their families, completely destitute and often used as an unpaid baby sitter, cook and housekeeper.

Call it mother in law insurance, if you must, because it's the main thing keeping your mother in law from being forced to move in with you.

[InvisibleBallots]

29. mother in law insurance - brilliant!

The threat of your mother in law moving in with you will guarentee that Americans will continue to support Social Security!

[kamqute]

11. Don't you think any kind of private account like that will end up..

..as a tax shelter for the wealthy anyway, regardless of where it's invested?

Also, an issue about privatization no one raises is that of transparency..there would be far less accountability in a system that acknowledges itself as private.

[zann725]

32. My thoughts exactly! Thank you!

What most of our Representatives voting on this really do NOT realize is that for most of middle-America, and most "middle-class"(about whom they haven't got a clue)...really do NOT have the resources to invest enough in 401K's or IRA's to really provide them with a truly livable retirement amount.
Most people today are just struggling to meet the rent and medical expenses, etc. Retirement age sneaks up on a person, as do unforeseen financial emergencies. And SS is there for a purpose...so that the elderly have at least basic living expenses, AND medical (do NOT forget Medicare...which this Admin. is also "trimming").

Without SS as we know it, I'm convinced we'll have elderly, and Disabled (on SSDI) living in the streets.

[checks-n-balances]

2. Hell no! See post #1 - they said it better than I could

We're probably headed for a deep recession if not depression thanks to permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, war costs, etc.

These rethuglicans think they'll be fine if that happens, since they've got their financial butts covered and eveyone else can "eat cake."

You can't get much more stupid than ignoring the patterns of history, and they're about to repeat that one. If they dilute and then destroy Social Security, they'll just have to re-invent it when our huge economic crisis hits.

"Compassionate Conservatism"....another ironic contradiction of Orwellian proportions brought to us by...Bush II.

[OneBlueSky]

3. "privatizing" is BushCo code for "looting" . . . n/t

.

[Muzzle Tough]

5. My response

I didn't vote. I don't agree with any of your three choices.

What worked in the 1930s will NOT work in the 21st century. Here's why. When Social Security was new, life expectancy was 63. Most people died before they became old enough to collect. Today, life expectancy is 77. In order for it to work like it worked in the 1930s, we'd have to raise the retirement age to 79, and people won't go for that idea.

As a matter of principle, I am against putting tax dollars into the stock market, so I can't vote for either of the other two options.

My idea is to make Social Security voluntary. I am pro-choice on abortion, medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, assisted suicide, gay marriage, and prostituion for consenting adults, so I figure I might as well be pro-choice on Social Security.

[fnottr]

6. Problem with that

is that it won't work as the system is set up. Right now, all the people paying into Social Security are funding the people receiving it. If a large portion of people decide to stop paying into it, then there won't be any money to pay the people who are getting benifits now.

I certainly agree that the program is facing some serious issues, but we can't simply make it volentary all of a sudden.

[Muzzle Tough]

13. That's an excellent point.

Then let's get rid of corporate welfare, end the war on drugs, and cut the military budget by 75%, and use that money to pay for any Social Security shortfall.

[fnottr]

28. no doubt

The money is definitly there, even Kerry's rather modest restructering of the budget would have kept the system working just fine until something like 2040. We can definitly save the program, but not when the government's top priority is invading middle eastern countries who pose no real threat to us.

[unblock]

7. the problem with opt-out is

well, what then do you do about the people who opt-out, invest on their own, then lose everything, be it due to bad luck, stupidity, ripoff, market crash, whatever.

is america really cool with having them live on the streets and saying "tough sh*t, you opted out?"

especially because you KNOW that greedy and unscrupulous investment companies would tell people not to worry, the government will take care of you if there's another depression even if you opt out.


bottom line is that opt-out is basically eliminating social security, and letting people find their own private insurance.


i do agree with your points about tinkering with the exact numbers, though. retirement age, contribution levels, means testing, etc. are all ways to adjust the existing program.

[Muzzle Tough]

14. That is a good question.

Too bad I don't have a good answer for it!

[blackangrydem]

9. But won't making it voluntary

dilute the fund?

[Muzzle Tough]

15. No.

Because there is no "Social Security Trust Fund."

In the 1937 U.S. Supreme Court decision Helverigh vs. Davis, the court ruled:

"The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."

So there is no "fund."

We should eliminate corporate welfare, end the war on drugs, and cut the military budget by 75%. That would give us lots of money to spend on the good stuff that really matters.

[high density]

12. I don't think you can make it voluntary

There will definitely be a crisis if people can opt-out, because less money will be flowing into SS, plus we'll need another safety net for the people who have pissed away all of their money or invested it poorly. (I think the same argument applies against "private savings accounts" that are placed in the stock market.) It's time to raise the cap on paying in from its current point of $88k to $200k. That would put an additional $1 trillion in the fund over the next ten years.

[Muzzle Tough]

16. Those are good points.

Except that there is no "fund" to put the money in to. Please see my comments in post 15 for further explanation.

[Pepperbelly]

19. actually there is or otherwise ...

it would not be necessary or even possible to "borrow" money from it for day-to-day government operations, as Congress has done and done and done.

[American Tragedy]

33. That is somewhat deceptive.

The mean live expectancy was driven down considerably by the overwhelming number of people who perished in childhood due to infectious diseases and such at that time.

And if people choose to opt out of paying Social Security, how do we cover the current recipients, especially when baby boomer retirees outnumber us?

[RafterMan]

8. Raise the cap from 89k to 250k

and cut the rates to match the new revenue.

Expand IRAs for investment accounts.

[izzie]

10. What about I just do not know?

I have read a lot and I tend to think, do not mess with it but some places this has worked well and some places in the world just bad.

[dpibel]

17. Where has it worked well? n/t

[Disturbed]

18. Should millionaires and billionairs...

get SS checks?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

20. Hidden agenda: another repuke wedge issue

Besides all the other reasons stated there is also the significant element that this is another issue that can divide the working class. The obvious factions will be younger voters against older voters, those who are fully funded versus those who are partially privatized, less affluent workers versus more affluent workers. The success of the right wing dominance in this country is based entirely on divisiveness and this is another issue that the neocons will use to appeal to the baser instinct of voter’s emotions featuring greed to divide and conqueror. (*) is already framing this issue by trying to present Social Security as not being fair to younger workers when in effect most younger workers over their lifetimes will benefit from a continuation of this program. The truth about the details will defeat this attempt to destroy Social Security but they may be negated by the manipulated mass media presentation by the more emotionally charged repuke generated wedge hate spin. The central factor is that this is not just a matter of reform but it a subtle long term effort at erosion of the most successful government sponsored social program in the history of our republic. This program promises all working class American’s the hope for an old age with some dignity by providing a guaranteed source of income to meet their most basic needs without fear of disenfranchisement. The rich do not want Social Security to continue they only want to profit by it erosion.

[robbedvoter]

21. What? We only have 10 Republicans here? Why is this for debate?

Social Security is the most successful government program to help people - therefore it must go. Government is solely to wage wars and look in your bedroom. The GOP mantra. Shame on everyone who voted yes.

[Poppyseedman]

22. Leave social security as it is

As much as that response has been hit, I find it very surprising that people really feel that way.

SS is not even remotely the same as it was in the 1930's. The demographies and numbers are vastly different.

I'm not sure of the correct answer to fix SS, but doing nothing is the worst possible choice.

[retread]

23. My rule of thumb is : "If * is for something, it CAN'T be good for

anyone other than the super rich. Therefore, if he is for it I'm against it!"

[robbedvoter]

24. In 1978, W predicted in 10 years it will go bankrupt :

, and he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves. None of this really distinguished him from Hance, though, so in the end Bush simply argued that a Republican could better represent the district: “If you want a chance in the way Congress has been run, send someone who will be independent from those who will run the Congress.”
http://www.bushfiles.com/bushfiles/midland.html

[Q]

25. Be forewarned:

The Bushies also call the Constitution, Geneva Conventions and International Laws 'antiquated' because they weren't written by THEM.

Also beware of the word 'reform' as used by the Bushie Neocons. Their brand of reform always means destruction. They don't want to 'reform' Social Security or any other government program. They want them destroyed and replaced with a corporate version.

Also...it would be nice to hear the thread author's opinion on this issue.

[Zynx]

26. All you have to do to save Social Security is raise the caps.

Currently, only the first $88,000 is taxed. If you raised those caps to $500,000 or got rid of them altogether, that would save Social Security forever.

[GOPBasher]

27. Do NOT privatize it. We can fix it for real by

getting rid of the cap for SS taxes. High income should be taxed for SS. That'll fix it for a while. If they want to do something "conservative" they can maybe increase the retirement age a little. As people continue to live longer and longer, it's going to be harder and harder to support everyone over 65. So I'd be willing to look at that "conservative" solution. Even raising a little, to say 67, would help a lot. But we don't even need to do that for a while. Just stop the cutting off of SS taxes at that capped figure. I think it's $87,000. Why did they ever do that in the first place? It's ridiculous.

[Orangepeel]

30. You know, I might do better with privitization

I have a 401K account that I'd like to put more money in. If I could do that instead of paying FICA taxes, I'd probably end up with more to retire on.

BUT --

1) that's not what social security is about. it is a social safety net, not an individual retirement plan

2) I doubt that's how privitization would work, even though most voters who are "for" it probably think so. I don't know exactly how it would work, but I'm sure there's a scam in there somewhere

[American Tragedy]

34. But you're not retiring on YOUR Social Security payments

You retire on the SS payments of the current workforce at that time.

[Nadienne]

31. The GOP solution:

If not privatize SS, then reduce life expectancy with dirty air, dirty water, diseased food, health care that is unaffordable and out of reach, etc, etc...

I think I would sooner take my retirement money to a casino than "invest" it in the stock market.

[w4rma]

35. This is my litmus test for being a Dem/Rep. If you support destroying SS

then you are a Republican. <Period> If you support Social Security then you are a Democrat. <Period>

[Hippo_Tron]

36. I liked the idea at first

But then realized that there is no such thing as a safe investment. If the GOP were truly pro "small government" they'd just abolish the program entirely, instead of forcing people to pay into a system that will more than less likely collapse on them at one point before they retire.

[VOX]

37. Wall Street is already licking its chops over possible privatization...

This **cannot** be allowed to happen.

Right-wing Republicans want to insert big business into everything -- that is their ultimate goal: more money for the wealthy. They have salivated at the idea of getting hold of Social Security funds for decades. Now, they are perilously close to actually doing something in that direction.

Every Democrat, progressive, liberal and moderate should fight against this money-grabbing scheme. No one's going to get rich off of privatization, except for Wall Street.

[xerenthar]

38. Privatize or abolish.