privitization on social security?


Recommended Posts

Are you against privitization of social security? I have to write a letter to a senator for college class. It is due tommorow and the teacher is going to mail them tommorow. I will be up for a few hrs more.

mail it to me at nukenorman@gmail.com

on aim nukenorman

or msn messgner

nsiegler1@msn.com

I have part of my letter started but I will send yours in along with mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you against privitization of social security? I have to write a letter to a senator for college class. It is due tommorow and the teacher is going to mail them tommorow. I will be up for a few hrs more.

mail it to me at nukenorman@gmail.com

on aim nukenorman

or msn messgner

nsiegler1@msn.com

I have part of my letter started but I will send yours in along with mine.

585912016[/snapback]

Anyone can write their Senator at any time. Unfortunately few take advantage of the opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've written my senators and representatives on several occasions and am always pleased to get their replies to my concerns.

As Bush has proposed: Giving people the option to invest a small portion of their Social Security in limited funds (not individual stocks) would be an excellent idea for those of us who still have many years ahead of us before drawing a penny.

It's a shame the AARP and left are relying on scare tactics to make the elderly think anything is going to change for those already drawing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Bush has proposed: Giving people the option to invest a small portion of their Social Security in limited funds (not individual stocks) would be an excellent idea for those of us who still have many years ahead of us before drawing a penny.

585912554[/snapback]

I don't have a problem with that. In Canada a portion of their CPP is invested in equities anyway. The balance is in Provincial and Federal bonds.

During 2000-2001, the operating balance earned an average interest rate of 5.27 percent, or $362 million. Short-term investments had an average interest rate of 5.63 percent and earned $12 million.

http://www.sdc.gc.ca/en/isp/pub/cpp/report...inanaccnt.shtml

That doesn't sound like a bad rate of concern considering that it is very conservatively invested.

[Thread Moved from GD to RWI]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Bush has proposed: Giving people the option to invest a small portion of their Social Security in limited funds (not individual stocks) would be an excellent idea for those of us who still have many years ahead of us before drawing a penny.

585912554[/snapback]

No, it isn't an excelent idea! The money that once is being used to be saved and go to grandma/grandpa is being invested in the stock market, but they still have to pay grandma. So where does that money come from? We borrow it, mostly from China. Don't you see? We are borrowing money and putting it into the stock market! That is a setup for disaster (read your history book, see "causes of great depression") and it doesn't even address the coming problem from the baby boom.

You would be a fool to invest your SS money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it isn't an excelent idea! The money that once is being used to be saved and go to grandma/grandpa is being invested in the stock market, but they still have to pay grandma. So where does that money come from? We borrow it, mostly from China. Don't you see? We are borrowing money and putting it into the stock market! That is a setup for disaster (read your history book, see "causes of great depression") and it doesn't even address the coming problem from the baby boom.

You would be a fool to invest your SS money.

585914077[/snapback]

Umm. Where if your personal retirement money?

I think the government can hire some experts to devise a plan whereby the money is conservatively invested in the stock market providing decent but not stellar returns with minimal risk.

As I posted before, Canada's CPP plan returns about 5.5% (mostly from bonds but there are some equities).

We have always kept the money we collect (mostly through CPP payroll deductions at source) in a separate account that has never mixed with general revenes. I gather that is not the case in the United States although I can't claim to understand these items all that well (not being a US taxpayer and all).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the government can hire some experts to devise a plan whereby the money is conservatively invested in the stock market providing decent but not stellar returns with minimal risk.

585914285[/snapback]

I'm not exactly sure where the money is kept now, but it is kept in a place where it gains about 3.5% interest, about the rate of inflation. (If someone could remind me that'd be great :p ) If we invested it, it would have to meet the 3.5%, plus you got to pay those stock brokers (bill estimated to about a trillion, but I guess that depends on how many suckers are out there) and the interest of the borrowed money. It has to gain a significant amount for us to not lose money. And the problem they are scaring everyone about is still not being addressed!

But hey, maybe it will all work out when we roll that die. Spin the wheel. Those so-called experts told us we have a 10:1 chance of winning, lets take it. And while we're at it, lets belittle all those Democrats and Republicans and tell them they dont have the gonads to go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would much rather be in control of my ss dollars.  The govt can't invest worth crap.

585914301[/snapback]

My problem with that is that some people are idiots and you need to protect them from themselves. I believe that the government run social security system should be conservatively invested but it is not that hard to hire an expert retirement fund manager out of the private sector and have them invest the money in both equities and bonds to maximize the rate of return while minimizing risk (with preference to the minimal risk rather than maximal rate of return).

If you want you retirement money more aggressively invested then you can do that through your 401ks (or whatever they are called, we call them Registered Retirement Savings Plans). In fact you can be even be slightly more aggressive with your 401ks knowing that your social security will be there too.

I have no troubles investing SS money in the stock market but I wonder if involving the general public is a great idea. I think one national social security investment czar is probably a better and safer idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well BOOGy, they aren't 'your' SS dollars which I think is the root of this whole ****ing problem. It is not, nor has it ever, been an investment scheme. It's a means of providing SOCIAL security. Its an insurance policy that keeps the elderly from the dangers of poverty which they are uniquely susceptible.

Now, I'm not opposed to a government office investing a portion of the money that is supposed to be set aside (instead of spending it like the idiot Republicans and Dems have done so far) for SS, but individually? It doesn't make any sense WHATSOEVER. Bush isn't fixing SS because he, like most proponents, just don't understand what its for.

Want a good return from SS? Live to be a hundred. What is next BOOG, privatizing welfare? :rolleyes:

Edited by Dashel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But nothing is 'set aside'. There is no trust fund (don't tell Algore). There are three workers paying for each person drawing out. 40 years ago there were 9 paying in for each person drawing out. The system will never survive for any length of time unless:

-there's a massive decrease in the elderly population

-people suddenly decide to pay double what they pay now in SS taxes

-people who become eligible to draw SS decline it

-the system as we know it is drastically changed

the latter is the only viable option

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But nothing is 'set aside'.  There is no trust fund (don't tell Algore).  There are three workers paying for each person drawing out.  40 years ago there were 9 paying in for each person drawing out.  The system will never survive for any length of time unless:

-there's a massive decrease in the elderly population

-people suddenly decide to pay double what they pay now in SS taxes

-people who become eligible to draw SS decline it

-the system as we know it is drastically changed

the latter is the only viable option

585916148[/snapback]

Exactly. Unfortunately it seems as though most all Democrats in Congress reject any and every idea which decreases the socialist nature of the program. That leaves one option: raising payroll taxes. I've seen no innovative ideas from Democrats suggesting otherwise. They merely respond to and criticize any and every idea put forward. Many choose to tell a naive, impressible populace that there IS no problem with social security. Any economist will tell you otherwise. At least many Republicans are putting ideas on the table and working to fix the problem instead of ignoring and denying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But nothing is 'set aside'.  There is no trust fund (don't tell Algore).  There are three workers paying for each person drawing out.  40 years ago there were 9 paying in for each person drawing out.

585916148[/snapback]

First, there is pleanty set aside. In the form of 30yr bonds from the US treasury, which get 3.5% interest (yes I remember :D). SS still exists today because we thought ahead and saved. As of now, SS is the only system that isn't in debt. Everything else, the military, the education system, healthcare, it's all in debt. SS isn't. Sadly, all you see is the number of people paying into SS decreasing and you get scared. Well you're right, it is happening, but we managed SS so well that we can handle it! The problem isn't SS, it's everything else.

You want to know the crisis that they are telling you about?

2010: baby boom begins to retire.

2020: SS begins to pay out more than it collects, so we dip into savings.

The crisis is in about 2045 or some other yeah depending on what economist you ask, we will only be able to pay about 70% of what we pay now. That's the "crisis".

And if that crisis is a concern to you, why are you buying into this privatization thing? The crisis isn't even being addressed. Unless, maybe, if you're a stock broker.

Adonai, sorry, you can't just watch mainstream media all day and think you understand the problem. I just find it quite sad that I tell you borrowed money is going into the stock market and that doesn't make you double take. You trust the plan because the media scares. You trust it because Bush tells you how he's going to change it with the plan someone else made up who made it because they want to get rich off of your ignorance on how SS works.

That leaves one option: raising payroll taxes.

Well maybe not doing those tax rebate thinies that mostly go to the upper class anyway will help out as well. But hey what do I know, I'm a fool for wanting to save my money rather than spending it on a new computer or some other want. You speak as if this privatization plan will fix it, which it wont. And as far as im concerned, the plan wasn't made by/ supported by Republicans. It's by the ignorant and the devious.

Either I spend more on taxes or I get totally screwed because of privatization. Yeah not a tough choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe not doing those tax rebate thinies that mostly go to the upper class anyway will help out as well. But hey what do I know, I'm a fool for wanting to save my money rather than spending it on a new computer or some other want. You speak as if this privatization plan will fix it, which it wont. And as far as im concerned, the plan wasn't made by/ supported by Republicans. It's by the ignorant and the devious.

Either I spend more on taxes or I get totally screwed because of privatization. Yeah not a tough choice.

585916488[/snapback]

Have you seen Bush's newest 'progressive-indexing' plan? It preserves the most favorable wage indexes for the poorest (lowest ~30 percent) in the nation. These are the people who will need to rely on SS the most. Those who are more financially secure receive much less generous calculation. The more wealthy citizens benefits WILL be cut - but they will be able to cope with it (full indexing applies only to those who make >$110,000/yr), and private accounts offer a way to recover the loss by earning more favorable returns. Democrats should LOVE this plan! For years, they have been trying to tax the most wealthy members of society at higher rates than the poor. This plan hardly favors 'upper class', wealthy Americans. The wealthiest of Americans are absorbing the cuts in benefits, and the poorest are benefiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you seen Bush's newest 'progressive-indexing' plan?

585916555[/snapback]

Actually no I haven't, nor have I mentioned it previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* In 1935, the life expectancy of a 65-year-old was 12? years, today it?s 17? years.

* There are currently 3.3 workers for each Social Security beneficiary. By 2031, there will be 2.1 workers for each beneficiary.

* By 2031, there will be almost twice as many older Americans as today ? from 37 million today to 71 million.

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/basicfact.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its funny that where going to base out ss program on same idea as a killer that we put into power :huh: anywy, I don't think will solve the problem because people aren't going to keep putting money into when the can spend there money on something else and when retirement comes around they are not going to have a lot of money in there account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well BOOGy, they aren't 'your' SS dollars which I think is the root of this whole ****ing problem.  It is not, nor has it ever, been an investment scheme.  It's a means of providing SOCIAL security. Its an insurance policy that keeps the elderly from the dangers of poverty which they are uniquely susceptible.

Now, I'm not opposed to a government office investing a portion of the money that is supposed to be set aside (instead of spending it like the idiot Republicans and Dems have done so far) for SS, but individually?  It doesn't make any sense WHATSOEVER.  Bush isn't fixing SS because he, like most proponents, just don't understand what its for. 

Want a good return from SS?  Live to be a hundred.  What is next BOOG, privatizing welfare? :rolleyes:

585914890[/snapback]

Prime post Dashel :yes:

The issue I am having with this isnt the IDEA of investing SS dollars. The problem is, the administration is catering to a portion of the populace that views SS as not a safeguard against poverty, but as another form of income (and gueranteed one at that), on top of retirement and such. If you view SS as some form of guarenteed income, and YOUR RIGHT after a certain age (not based on your retirment income, but your WANTS) then you are a moron, and need to look at what SS is, and was, implemented for. This was NEVER MEANT TO BE THAT. It has been, and should be kept that way, a form of "Safety Net" to keep an increasing elderly population, secure from being in poverty.

Now, Ironically, most ignore the basic idea that SS isnt a given, and that if they are not in NEED of it (meaning you cant afford to pay your bills, feed yourselves, and live in a manner that is not a continued health risk) they shouldnt be getting it. Yes, you put that money into it, but this is a Government Based program, not to insure those that have retirement benefits get a little more every month, but that those that DONT have retirement benefits get JUST ENOUGH each month. If you believe that this is taking away from what you have invested into it, then you are thinking of SS in a totally misconcieved manner, and are blinding yourself as to what it was put in place for.

Ah well. We should just ditch all Social programs (except ones that curtail citizens rights, as they dont count) , state and federal tax programs ('cause if you get no direct benefit form it, why pay taxes on stuff, right??) and anything that requires YOU, the tax payer, to contribute to something that benefits the whole nation, as opposed to just YOURSELF.

Yep, thats what Social Security was put in place for. Only for Personal Benefit. Any idea, or view otherwise, is silly, because we all know that investing in programs the benefit the entire nation is a dumb idea. We all know also, that SS was never meant to be a safety net for the elderly, or cripple and injured, but a method for securing MORE income once we retire. Thats all. Should change the name. Make it Private Security instead. Or Personal Income Security. Or maybe Personal Investment Oppurtunity Subsidized by the Government Security. Obviously, the idea that insuring our aging citiznes a standard of living that more and more are not only failing, but falling well below the poverty line is ludacris, and silly to even mention (though thats what the goal of SS is....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada has two programs.

Canada Pension Plan: You are forced to pay into it through payroll deductions. It's invested for you in equities and bonds. Then you get it back when you are 60+ (depending on when you retire). The amount get you back depends on what you put in. You are, however, not penalized for not working years when your children are young.

Old Age Security: This is paid out to low income seniors seniors (65+). Wealthier people either don't get it at all or they get some nominal amount.

I'm not sure which of these plans is closer to US Social Security. Originally I thought it was a pension system but it now sounds to me to be more like Old Age Security.

Additionally we also have RRSPs which, I gather, are similar to 401ks. You can deposit up to 18% of your yearly salary into these tax deferral plans. If you don't use all of your 18% this year then you can save the balance for next year (or until you need it). RRSPs are completely private and optional. While it is possible to create a self-directed RRSP and invest in stocks directly, usually these investments are made into mutual funds.

If your workplace has a pension plan then you may find that this cuts into your RRSP eligibility (a really, really good workplace pension plan may leave you with relatively little room to invest in RRSPs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada has two programs.

Canada Pension Plan:  You are forced to pay into it through payroll deductions.  It's invested for you in equities and bonds.  Then you get it back when you are 60+ (depending on when you retire).  The amount get you back depends on what you put in.  You are, however, not penalized for not working years when your children are young.

Old Age Security: This is paid out to low income seniors seniors (65+).  Wealthier people either don't get it at all or they get some nominal amount.

I'm not sure which of these plans is closer to US Social Security.  Originally I thought it was a pension system but it now sounds to me to be more like Old Age Security.

Additionally we also have RRSPs which, I gather, are similar to 401ks.  You can deposit up to 18% of your yearly salary into these tax deferral plans.  If you don't use all of your 18% this year then you can save the balance for next year (or until you need it).  RRSPs are completely private and optional.  While it is possible to create a self-directed RRSP and invest in stocks directly, usually these investments are made into mutual funds.

If your workplace has a pension plan then you may find that this cuts into your RRSP eligibility (a really, really good workplace pension plan may leave you with relatively little room to invest in RRSPs).

585919186[/snapback]

Under Canada's system, if say, a father supporting a wife and children was to die, would his 'pension' or 'old age security' be transferred to his family at all, or how would that work? This is a pretty big problem with the U.S. system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under Canada's system, if say, a father supporting a wife and children was to die, would his 'pension' or 'old age security' be transferred to his family at all, or how would that work? This is a pretty big problem with the U.S. system.

585924825[/snapback]

CPP would be transferred. OAS would not.

That is, at least, my current understanding. I've got over 30 years to worry about the details.. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not really doing much to defend your argument adonai.

585918343[/snapback]

my hearts not really in it.

suffice it to say my 401k has done better in 5 years than my SS has in the 22 years I've worked. I say let those who wish to invest a portion do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my hearts not really in it. 

585930343[/snapback]

So that's the best you got? Now that you realize you're wrong, your heart isn't really into your own money. You will regret your inability to think with an open mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, there is a serious misconception here. This isnt money you are investing into a retirement. If that is your "Plan", then you have a 401k, or something similer, NOT SOCIAL SECURITY. Social Security isnt an "investment" scheme for you to have further down the road. Social Security is meant to be a safety net for a growing population of elderly (and middle age now also) who DONT have 401k's, and who DONT have the benefit of working for large-ish companies that are stabel enough to provide long term retirement plans.

The idea that since you have invested money into a system for a certain period of time, and deserve to get some back isnt, at its base, wrong. The IDEA anyeays. Its just NOT WHAT SOCIAL SECURITY is meant for. Thats like saying, since I pay taxes to help prop up a continuously, and seriously, broken welfare system, I deserve to get that back in the form of a check each month, once I get past the age of 60. We pay taces for services provided by our government our entire lives. When the road work isnt done in our area, do we demand they give us our tax dollars back? If the water system gets to old to handle the job, we dont tell them to give us our first 10 years woth of taxes back. We have them fix it, and we CONTINUE to pay taxes on it.

The single most bothersome thing about this argument is that SS is not, and was never meant to be, an "investment" for your retirement plans. If you are viewing it in this manner, you are misleading yourself, and letting our current administration mislead you, in what this money is meant for, and what it is being turned into. We are already gutting Medicaid, making it more dificult for aging americans to get above baseline medical treatment, as well as making it ever more dificult to get medication, and now, we are turning our sights on that raging liberal idea that, Social Security isnt BROKEN, its just being viewed, and used, in a manner which its original planners had no intention of it being used for.

I fully appreciate the thought that if you invest money into this for so long, there should be something there for you when you retire...IF YOU NEED IT. Otherwise, if you already have a retirement plan, and you are living securley above the poverty line, you should not be expecting to recieve this paycheck each month. You should expect it to be sent to the people who NEED it, not simply want it back in thier wallet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.