dom6996

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

I for one think it is wrong! Yes, it needs reform, but we shouldn't privatize it!

We all ready have 401k's and some companies (like mine) have pension plans. Placing our money in one basket (the stock market) is a recipe for disaster.

What do you think?

schutzenkonig

How bout explaining your thoughts more. You haven't explained why it's so bad. You said that it all goes to the stock market, but that's not necisarily the case.

VIVIX

Social security is a failing hope. The current baby-boomer population is going to run it dry and all of the money that I'm putting into it will be gone by the time that I am going to need it. Personally I believe that if somebody (not pointing fingers) in the White House would stop attacking everyone, there would be more money for the government to put into social programs, and a good portion of this mess would be solved.

I am not an economist, nor do I know anything about how the government gets its money to sum up such large debts, but why not just throw money into Social Security like they are spending it on the military?

dom6996

First off, I am not a highly active political person. I don't pretend to follow political agendas, but I read articles from time to time and thought this would be a good current event to start a discussion about. At this rate, I still have 38 years left before I can receive 100% of Social Security benefits under this plan...

Here's my thoughts based on articles I have read:

1. Social Security is not in crisis.
   Conservative reports show that the long-term challenges of Social Security will not present themselves until 2042. Even then, social security has 70% of funds that will be needed. That shortfall is smaller than the amount needed in 1983, the last time we overhauled Social Security. This 'crisis' has as much merit as the WMD claim made by the same Administration!
2. Phasing out Social Security and replacing it with privatized accounts means one thing: massive cuts in monthly benefits for everybody.
   Social Security privatization requires diverting taxes used to pay current benefits into privatized accounts invested in risky stocks. Without that money, Social Security benefits will inevitably be cut.
3. Every serious privatization proposal raises the Social Security retirement age to 70.
   Don't know about you, but when I entered the work force the retirement age was 55! My golden years now are going to be spent, working instead of enjoying the rest of my miserable life!
4. So who does Privitization benefit?
   Wall Street would make billions of dollars in profit by managing the privatized accounts -- money that would come directly from our benefits.
5. Privatization means gambling with our retirement security.
   There is probably an appropriate place for a little stock market risk in retirement planning -- but it isn't Social Security. Privatization exposes my entire retirement portfolio to stock market risks -- and the risk that I'll outlive any of my savings at retirement. You can't outlive your Social Security benefit.
   
   Sure you can invest in money market accounts, and bonds; but these yeild little return and are for people close to retirement who shouldn't gamble as aggressively.

God bless corporate America!

schutzenkonig

In response to your points:

1. It doesn't matter about 2042, what matters is that now the return is almost zero. People are losing money because they are forced to put away money into this poorly managed and poorly compounding system.

2. This is a statement made by dems so that people will misread it and misunderstand what will happen. The benifits from the gov't will be reduced if you choose to privitize, but you'll be getting money from other places that you put your money into.

3. Many people are working to 70 yrs old now, and if they didn't, they'd be retired longer than they were working.

4. UGH!! you obviously have ignored the fact that you don't have to privitize if you don't want to! You act like this will be the way that everyone's account will be. IT WON'T. They are given the choice to leave the system as it is, or to make a privitized account. Also, if wall street does well...and you have money in there...you do well. So what's the problem?

5. See above about how privitization will work. You need realize that when you're young the best way to gain wealth is through "risky" stocks? You also need to realize that privitization means that they can put the money in the stock market when they are young, and move it to lower risk accounts when they are older. Also...money market accounts and bonds you mentioned are low risk, but do have better growth than social security.

jeremybrooks

Posts: n/a/0

Threads:

Bill Clinton seems to think that social security is in crisis:
"the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security. ...If nothing is done by 2029, there will be a deficit in Social Security trust fund, which will either require...a huge tax increase in the payroll tax, or just about a 25 percent cut in Social Security benefits."

So which one of his plans do any of you agree with?

Wayne Brady

My parent retired a year ago, I couldn't see them working until 70. Maybe for Actors, Politicians, and people working at a desk. What about Construction workers, Textile workers, Mechanics, and other Laborers(you know, the people who have done back breaking work for 30-40 years). Every time I go into a fast food restaurant or Wal-mart and see someone's Grandma or Grandpa working their ass off to make ends meet, I realize the current system isn't working. But raising the age to 70's would be insane for lifelong laborers.
I agree something has to be done, but just like all economic solutions it doesn't have to be all or nothing. They can use a metered response to ease into the Bush Plan.

schutzenkonig

um...it's not all or nothing, as I stated before it's a choice you make. As far as those older folks in Walmart, some have relied on social security and can't afford anything without work (just to show you that social security needs an overhaul), but even more just need to work because they don't know what to do in life without work.

0 snowman 0

Even if it was all or nothing, the current plan as I know it only calls for a maximum of four percent of your income allowed into an account. And why does it need to be "risked" in the stock market? Just allow people to put their money in a banking account; which really wouldn't be banking, just kind of holding. There's probably some flaw in what I just said, so have at it.

thepipebomb

First of all, to not recognize that social security is in a crisis is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand. The problem is not going to go away with out major reform. When social security first started there were 16 workers contributing for every 1 collecting. Now it is just above 3 for every 1 collecting. By 2029 it will be 2 for every 1 and social security will be paying out more than it is receiving. By 2040something it will become insolvent. This is of course if nothing is done. I don’t understand how anyone can say we don’t have a crisis on our hands.

Admittedly the White House hasn’t come up with any serious proposal to fix the social security problem, but neither have the democrats. I think Bush’s plan for partial privatization is great. Social security is earning about 3% on your money right now. The stock market as a whole has historically returned around 7%. That would be if you spread your money across the entire market. In theory you could do a lot better if you invested in particular sectors. Nonetheless I’d much rather have some control over my money, rather than just handing it over to the government and hoping for the best. Plus, under the President’s plan, your money would be your own. You could will your money to your children. Unlike now, where if you die one year into retirement your children see nothing of your potential social security.

Will privatized accounts save social security? No. They will help you have more control over your retirement and offer you a much better return on your money. I don’t know what can be done to make social security more solvent. The only things I can see are a reduction in benefits, raising the age or massive reform.

While I do support the President, this is not a case of me blinding following Bush. I would support anyone from either side of the isle who was for private accounts. In fact I would love to be able to opt out of social security all together and invest my money myself.

dom6996

okay, my apologies. what I meant say is that Social Security is not in the "WMD" crisis that the current administration is painting it to be. It is in a crisis, always has been, but it not as bad right now as they say it is.

Blue collar workers, and minorities would never out live their social security benefits. Not everyone is living past 70.

Social security programs will take huge hit with privitization and social security currently pays out benefits to dependents of deceased parents. A friend of mine lost her husband after he took his life anf her son collected social security until he was 18.

We have already butchered the current programs and they'll be butchered more with this plan.

There is no magic solution being proposed that will end these woes, and we don't need to rush into something that might cause more harm than good.