rowlfe
 |
Privatizing social security has been floated several times over the past several years. Think about it for a moment. My stock portfolio is worth 50% of what it was a year ago because of the overall drop in the recent markets. If this was what was going to provide for my retirement, I would be is very SAD shape indeed! Sorry, how exactly would anyone GAIN from having their retirement funds invested in the stock market when it hits a speed bump like it is currently doing? What do you think would happen to those retirement funds? No, better to raise the limit on what is taxed than to shift into the stock market. |
|
Joe C
|
If this happens we will have to bail out all of the people who lose their money and are broke when they want retire. |
|
psucunningham
 |
You can't cut current recipients' benefits... that would go against the very definition of the term "social secutiry."
Though I agree it's a huge problem, and a lot of boomers that plan to collect social security don't actually NEED that money... it's a necessary evil. How would you like it if you put money into your 401K for your entire career, and then the government decided upon your retirement that they were going to put a cap on the amount you can pull out each year? |
|
Rich Z
|
Only if they promise to not whine if their private investments drop down to worthless. At that point they can beg on street corners to get an income but it sure should not coming from standard social security. It should be their risk and their loss when things screw up. Where would they be now if the stock market is where their income was coming from? |
|
src50
 |
That's what the Republicans wanted. |
|
wartz
 |
Current beneficiaries should not be harmed by changes made for the benefit of future retirees.
The current system guarantees that a retired worker will receive a benefit for life. By investing a portion of their tax in a private account a person would have the opportunity to increase their benefit dramatically and risk the market tanking. If you have a very long life, the private investment funds might run out before you do. With a short one, you would leave more for your heirs unless the system is set up to prohibit that. On average, outside investments would generate higher benefits but either choice is a crap shoot. |
|
jungleempress
|
yes |
|
PJ
 |
No. Have you been watching the stock market the last few months? I don't think that would be a good idea. |
|
peter.jungmann
|
They should be allowed to divert ALL of it if they choose to. |
|
Panther Goddess
|
Every person should be "allowed" to do what they wish with their own money within the boundries of the law. Government nor companies should limit the person's abilities to choose when and where they apply their personal earnings. |
|
mikeduptwo
|
Workers should be allowed to do what they want. Moreover, the company should provide the workers with an option. The workers should be able to decide without pressure from the company. This leaves it to a personal decision, which I would say isn't the best idea now! |
|
Earl s
|
Congress has its own retirement plan. If they had to belong to SS the economy would be much better. |
|
Abox5
 |
Yes, you should have the option. I people would act like adults and make the decisions they need to make for their futures, this should be an available option. But in this country with half of the adults that act like children and want the government to take care of them, I'm sure they won't want to allow free choice. |
|
righteousjohnson
|
If people want to opt out of Social Security, let them, but don't cut benefits to current recipients.
You should instead cut the future benefits of those people who wanted to put their money elsewhere. They are the ones seeking higher returns, let them also then, assume the risk. |
|
Dr. Strangelove
|
That strategy was suggested in the 90's when tech stocks were on a roll. I'm sure many people are glad that didn't come about. Most individuals should not be trusted with their retirement benefits. As far as cutting back today's recipients, you'd have a mutiny on your hands. SS benefits were set up so that current contributors would fund the system. How would you like it if someone cut your bennies after you started collecting? |
|
Steve
|
Yes, but we would all be rich and politions can not stand that.
For everyone looking at the stock market today as reason not to, the DOW in 1980 was 800, today it is 8000, I am 30 so at 60 I will see 80,000 not to shabby. When inlcuding dividends that is 9-10% return. Also about a 5-6% real return.
A worker making 40K will get $1200 from SO security. Lets see how much he would have if he gave 4% to a private account. It would yeild about $870 dollars a month. SS on that same 4% Yields $480 dollars a month. It should be a no brainer.
You do not have to cut current benefictuaries. You can cut my benefits, If I choose a private account cut my future SS benefits to by 1/4. Today it would be 1800, in the future it will be 1800*.6*.75=$723, I will recieve 1300 from my private account, for a total of $2000. This reduces the liability of social security to 75 cents on the dollar. |
|
griggle
|
why not, at least the government couldn't steal it out of the s.s. trust fund. what do you think happened to all the money that was in there? congress "borrowed" it. now they can't afford to put it back. |
|
Pichouette
|
I think that we should be able to divert a large portion of our Social Security taxes (which by the way government is considering not giving social security to our generation [20 year olds] which means we may or may not have retirement money, quite a gamble) to savings accounts. These will be no ordinary savings accounts, 92% of the account will be UNTOUCHABLE until we retire. Leaving 8% for those lovely life emergencies (hey it is rightfully our money anyway). This account will have excellent interest and cannot be taxed.
I know you suggested investments but in my opinion that's a more severe gamble then allowing the government to take your money without a guarantee that you will get it back.
As far as the current recipients, there benefits are small and ineffective enough, of course they shouldn't be cut.
So how do we get the money to do all of this?
We would probably have to raise taxes to compensate for the missing third that we diverted. Maybe we could increase lottery, alcohol, and cigarette tax? |
|
politicallyincorrect
|
I agree with diverting some of the money into SAFE investment vehicles because the return the government has been getting on this money is pathetic at best and after all it is our money, but I do not agree with cutting benefits to current recipients and no I am not a current recipient. IMO social security money should not be touched by the government at all except to invest it and they haven't done that very well. If anyone had a financial planner getting the return they are getting on this money, they would without a doubt be fired. Think about it, even a 1% increase in the return of 100's of millions of dollars is a huge amount of money. There just is no excuse that we are seeing such poor returns on this cash. |
|
â–ºBobBâ—„
|
YES, it would give the worker more control over their retirement. Social inSecurity will not be there when they want to retire. Congress is spending the money faster than they can tax to get it. |
|
jim b
|
YES- The average person gets back less than 10% of the money they paid in over the course of their working life. If you only get 10% back anyway, you couldn't do much worse controlling it yourself. |
|
regerugged
|
Yes and no. Ok on the investments. There is no justification for cutting benefits. |
|
xxmachina
|
So instead of the federal government borrowing the social security reserve, you'd force the money into the stock market, which would artificially inflate the price of stocks and give huge profits to current stock holders? You don't have a problem with the government enacting laws which have direct effects on the stock market and would continue to do so, as demographics shift over time?
It seems like at best a lateral move and would just make the basic bottom level security net even more impractical than it is now. At the worst it is shallow attempt to boost the current market and end social security. |
|
bRiLa
|
yes
they should b able 2
& yes benefit 2 others should b cut i believe |
|
tiny dan
|
no , most workers would screw up worse than the government has already like investing in hoola hoops or slinkys 40 years ago and trying to sell that stock now |
|
Jeanne R
|
1. No. Most people have no clue as to how to invest. Unless they can pass a test that proves proficiency, people should not be allowed to gamble with their safety net.
2. No benefits for current recipients should not be cut. While today's workers are paying for those benefits, yesterday's workers paid for the benefits of those that came before them. That is the promise that Social Security made when it started. My parents paid in for 40 years before they retired for the people that came before them . Their benefits (which inflation eats away at every year) should not be cut because of Washington's mistakes. That being said, I believe that benefits should be reduced for high income retirees. People who have an income of $250K per year or more really don't "need" Social Security benefits. I know that it sounds like I am punishing people for making great choices but as a temporary (10 year) measure to save the Social Security system, I would be willing to bear the criticism. Benefits for future recipients have already been "cut" in a way. Most people do not realize that the full Retirement age for those born after 1937 is not age 65. It varies from 65 years 2 months for those born in 1938 up to 67 years for those born in 1960 or later. Given the ability to use a Roth IRA by current workers {which most retirees did not have access to} and the ability of a Roth to make a millionaire out of almost anybody who has $5,000 per year to contribute and 40 years of contributions and investments, the Social Security benefits of these future millionaires should be phased out according to income. |
|
Leesa
|
Should be 100%. But unfortunately that wont happen. |
|
tyucikas16
 |
short answer: "no"
the potential for abuse is staggering
you are currrently "free" to invest in private
sector choices anyway if you choose to do
so.
"render unto Ceasar what is his and
invest the rest ... but don't whine about it"
why screw with something that actually
allows many people to afford to live in
a non-poverty manner? |
|
mike1942f
|
"Today's workers" have always paid for current beneficiaries although the increase in rates and change of retirement ages about ten years ago pays in more (now) than is going out, which is being used to apparently reduce the deficit. Social Security has always been a tax to pay for a charity, never an investment and the individual does not have the any right to the money except for specific conditions like death or disability. And the current stock and housing market shows the risk of "private" investments. |
|
bostonianinmo
|
NO! That was Bush's "plan" for SS. Imagine what the trust fund would be like following the recent market meltdown!
The other major problem with the "privatization" plan is that you can't rightfully cut benefits for current beneficiaries. You'd have to implement a sliding scale of cuts spanning 40 or 50 years
You already have to opportunity to set up your own private retirement plan, either through your employer if they offer one, or independently with an IRA. Only a fool (or an exceedingly poor person) would not avail themselves of that. SS is a minimum safety net and should not be messed with. |
|
IaskQUESTIONS
|
no |
|
| |
|
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Taxes 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
