Social Security
- Thread starter Azadre
- Start date
Azadre said:
A new private, non-mandatory one? Yes.
Bascially yes it is, and I think that's a good thing.
Our version of it, the Canada Pension Plan is a disaster and is leaving more and more elderly people in poverty.
I've been told that New Zealand has a system similar to what Bush is proposing (any kiwis here to confirm?) and that it has been quite successful.
Our version of it, the Canada Pension Plan is a disaster and is leaving more and more elderly people in poverty.
I've been told that New Zealand has a system similar to what Bush is proposing (any kiwis here to confirm?) and that it has been quite successful.
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
Make social security totally voulentary or dissolve it would be fine for me. I don't like the idea of the government having my money for my future. I can invest better. Bush's plan, however, of just diverting part of the payroll to private taxes seems like a horrible plan. The administrative costs will quickly eat up any extra return the private accounts have over the current ones, and their is a lot more risk. The two trillion gap to iniate this is not a good thing to add to our already growing debt and at a time when our dollar is quickly losing value.
Rhymes
Drive 4 25 is back
Its hard to admit, but my leftist @ss agrees. The current social security plan (at least in Canada) needs a reform..... But I dont think the solution is that simple, I dont even think there is a solution, with an aging society like ours, there aint much we can do about it.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Should it be reformed? Yes. Should it become privatized? NO.
Rhymes
Drive 4 25 is back
North King said:
Agree, but a private-public union could end up having the best results....
taper
Meet Tux
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,463
Why can't we just put our SS taxes into a stock market index fund? With a 40 year average of 13% growth, that will easily beat the 3% growth in the current Social Security fund. Once a person gets close to retirement, say 10 years, move the money to a bond index fund. This protects against short term dips in the stock market delaying retirement for some people. That's how I want it.
Rhymes
Drive 4 25 is back
taper said:
It would be cool if it was that easy, but there are a couple of twist in that plan.
Anyway, if everybody had some kind of economic background, they probably could do as well as the social plan, and some would do better. But thats not the case, most of the population doesn't have a clue of what a good investment is. And if you let the private sector handle it, there will obvioulsy be abuses and some people will get screwed and loose everything. Thats why I think that a semi-private system with government regulations could be a good alternative.....
In that scenario, there might be a very small contribution, but most of the rest of the investment would be each person's decision....
Anyway, its not perfect, but I think thats the main idea we should buil on.
A'AbarachAmadan
Deity
Changes I'd like to see:
-change retirement age every year based upon life expectancy; your retirement age locks-in when your 50 (or could do every few years as appropriate)
-remove max contribution cap, now set under $90K
-allow member to opt out w/ Personal Investment Accounts (PIAs) w/ limited investment options; for every x% you put in a PIA you lose 2x% in benefits. So, you could get 50% of your money back, but get no benefits. This means EVERYONE will still be putting some money into the system even if they don't get anything back as part of the overall insurance program. Most rich folks would opt completely out and earn more money, but still be contributing to support the poor. Best of both worlds IMHO.
-change retirement age every year based upon life expectancy; your retirement age locks-in when your 50 (or could do every few years as appropriate)
-remove max contribution cap, now set under $90K
-allow member to opt out w/ Personal Investment Accounts (PIAs) w/ limited investment options; for every x% you put in a PIA you lose 2x% in benefits. So, you could get 50% of your money back, but get no benefits. This means EVERYONE will still be putting some money into the system even if they don't get anything back as part of the overall insurance program. Most rich folks would opt completely out and earn more money, but still be contributing to support the poor. Best of both worlds IMHO.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
I don't see what is wrong about privatization. The only problem would be that it would screw over the current generation of elderly, who did not have a chance to invest in private accounts.
My ideal idea of Social Security: Cut out all the taxes that currently go to social security, and give them back to the people. If they choose not to save, its their fault. If there are old people in abject poverty, they can apply for welfare, and they will get it.
My ideal idea of Social Security: Cut out all the taxes that currently go to social security, and give them back to the people. If they choose not to save, its their fault. If there are old people in abject poverty, they can apply for welfare, and they will get it.
Rhymes
Drive 4 25 is back
cgannon64 said:
The problem with a private pension plan is that a business needs to make money, even if they can generate more benefits then the public plan, the excess funds will go in the pockets of the sharholders. There are also marketing costs, sales costs, represention costs, legal costs, etc, that dont appear in the public sector, in which most of the money invested and generated is given back to the population.
The other thing is that private invesing business's = possibility of frauds and abuses.
THE other, other problem is the possibility of bankrupcy of private business's.
Also, the percentage of the population who have both the knowledge and discipline to succesfully invest their money by themselves is pretty low, so what do you do with them when they get 70 and go out of money??? You cant just say "too bad for them".
Steve Thompson
haughty & over-confident
Mandatory social security should never have been put into place, and the government used it for funds anyway! I don't need anyone other than ME saving for MY retirement, if I have one!
Timko
King
I would have thought that the people that lose out won't be the current generation of elderly but the current generation of middle-age to young. They will pay for the current elderly with taxes/national debt, whilst they are forced to save for themselves.cgannon64 said:
aneeshm
Deity
IglooDude said:
Good idea . Agree with you here .
