Social Security

[Sparta]

I'm with IglooDude as well. I'd trade in all my rights to the current system's benefits for a cheeseburger, if I were allowed to somehow opt out. As is, we're all just indentured servants in a state-mandated Ponzi scheme.

 

[cgannon64]

Timko: Yeah, them too. Basically, a private pension plan would work best if you started with everyone at the age of 25. Its hard to make the transition, but that seems to be an argument no one even brings up.

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.

I don't see what you're saying here.

The other thing is that private invesing business's = possibility of frauds and abuses.

There is possibility of fraud anywhere, no matter what.

THE other, other problem is the possibility of bankrupcy of private business's.

There are safe investments that have guarenteed growth rates, are there not?

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".

As I said, there are safe investments that pretty much involve buying them and sitting on them. You don't need alot of smarts to do that.

 

[Rhymes]

I don't see what you're saying here.

Here is how it works: In a public plan, you give a part of your income to the govrnment for them to invst it. Lets say they receive 10000$ from the population, then they substract the salaries of the state employees of 1000$, so there is 9000$ left to invest.

In a private plan, there is competition among the different investing firms, so if they receive 10000$ from the people, they have to substract the 1000$ of salary, but also a 500$ of marketing, 500$ of legal fees, etc. Leaving them maybe 7000$ to invest instead of 9000$. So there is a loss of efficiency.

As I said, there are safe investments that pretty much involve buying them and sitting on them. You don't need alot of smarts to do that.

But fery few people would have the discipline to invest on their own, trust me, what do you do with them when they go out of money at 70 years old?

 

[cgannon64]

Here is how it works: In a public plan, you give a part of your income to the govrnment for them to invst it. Lets say they receive 10000$ from the population, then they substract the salaries of the state employees of 1000$, so there is 9000$ left to invest.

In a private plan, there is competition among the different investing firms, so if they receive 10000$ from the people, they have to substract the 1000$ of salary, but also a 500$ of marketing, 500$ of legal fees, etc. Leaving them maybe 7000$ to invest instead of 9000$. So there is a loss of efficiency.

I think this would be compensated by the fact that stocks return a much higher interest than Social Security does. Save the exception that your stocks go bankrupt, in which case its your fault for investing badly.

But fery few people would have the discipline to invest on their own, trust me, what do you do with them when they go out of money at 70 years old?

I beleive in Bush's plan it is mandatory to invest it. Either you invest it or the government keeps the money.

What I proposed was different. The government gives you your money back, with the strong suggestion that you invest it - perhaps even reccomending firms to invest it for you. If you choose not to do that, who's fault is it?

 

[Rhymes]

What I proposed was different. The government gives you your money back, with the strong suggestion that you invest it - perhaps even reccomending firms to invest it for you. If you choose not to do that, who's fault is it?

I know, in an ideal world that would be great, but I can assure you that many people are gonna spend that money instead of invetsing it. Then I agree 100% that its their fault and nobody else should be blamed. But a fact is that these people are gonna go broke before their lives end and soceity is gonna have to do something about it.

So what I'm asking you, is what would you do with these burdens? Let them go homeless?

 

[Azadre]

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/1104orr.html

http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2005/commentary05020304.htm?source=mptoppromo

 

[cgannon64]

So what I'm asking you, is what would you do with these burdens? Let them go homeless?

If they are in danger of starving, then they can go on welfare. I doubt there would be that many starving. If they have to become more frugal, then that is their fault, and its they are reaping what they sow. If they have to work longer, the same goes.

Azadre: The government may be able to cover Social Security even past the projected date; that is not what is broken about it. What is broken is that it takes up an absurd amount of the total budget.

 

[Rhymes]

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/1104orr.html

http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2005/commentary05020304.htm?source=mptoppromo

Very cool links, I'm buying this stuff

1- I believe in Allan, probably the american who makes the most sense to me

2- It made me realize that the US pension plan is a lot different from the one we have in Canada.

3- Proves again that the population is clueless and that politics is all about manipulating them.

 

[Rhymes]

If they are in danger of starving, then they can go on welfare. I doubt there would be that many starving. If they have to become more frugal, then that is their fault, and its they are reaping what they sow. If they have to work longer, the same goes.

At that point I guess its only a question of values. I'de rather loose a small amount of money and live in a land where people dont have to worry about there pension. There is allready enough stress sources in our society.....

 

[HighlandWarrior]

Where is it written in the constitution that once you reach the age of 65 you get to retire? Bump the age up to 75 at least, starting with the people who are 40 right now. If they don't like it, we can send them to china.

What did these poor babies do before social security? i bet it wasnt sitting in front of the tv eating dog food waiting to die.

 

[Azadre]

What did these poor babies do before social security? i bet it wasnt sitting in front of the tv eating dog food waiting to die.

You are close to the truth, but they can't afford TVs...

 

[Ayatollah So]

Reform Social Security, but not in the slightest resembling the Bush plan. A'AbarachAmadan has some excellent suggestions (when is he going to run for Congress?)

The Social Security trust fund will be used up in about 2042 or 2052, depending which forecast you use. At that point, if benefits are not cut, the system would start running a large deficit which would add onto any deficit in the rest of the budget (non-FICA taxes vs military plus discretionary spending plus medicare etc). So the "crisis" is that in the far future, the system threatens to create large deficits.

The Bush solution? Create large deficits immediately! Adding at least one trillion to the national debt during the transition period. That's $3000+ per man woman and child, on top of the already huge debt from the regular budget.

It would be a terrific joke, if it weren't meant seriously.

How many people out there sticking their credit cards in the ATM and taking a whopping cash advance to go play the stock market? Bushonomics: don't try this at home.