Social Security

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

It's unrealistic to expect an 18 year old to save any money, regardless of educating them about finances (without even addressing the discrepancies between the capabilities of poorly performing inner city schools and suburban schools).

 

If that 18 year old goes to college, he/she will most likely be in debt a substantial amount of money.  If they go to graduate school, not only are they accruing more debt, but they are putting off earning potential for a few more years, and deferring their loans.

 

We also live in a very live-now-pay-later society with credit card companies mass mailing out credit card applications with high interest rates.  I don't fill them out, and you don't fill them out, but what about the divorced mother of two working a barely-above-minimum wage job?  It's pretty tempting to maybe get that card and buy some decent clothing for your kid, or maybe stock the fridge.

 

I hear what you are saying about personal responsibility, but not everyone is capable of making the right decisions.

366555[/snapback]

 

So those who do should have to shoulder the costs of those who don't?

 

That's not capitalism.

[KRC]

I hear what you are saying about personal responsibility, but not everyone is capable of making the right decisions.

366555[/snapback]

 

So, we need a government program to take care of this?

[MattyT]

Horse sh--.

 

One of the reasons personal responsibility and community involvement has gone by the wayside is everyone expects the government to take care of every little thing.

 

A person investing $50 a month starting at age 18 with an 8% annual return would have over $300K at age 65.

 

Bump that to $100 a month and the return to 10% annual and the number moves to $1.2 million. 

 

That's a paltry amount of money - the first figure is about what most people spend on to watch television a month.

 

The problem in this country is people know exactly what is going on in Primetime but virtually nothing about their personal finances.  Perhaps you liberals could pony up a few billion for your beloved public schools to teach basic personal finance to kids BEFORE they enter the working world.

366531[/snapback]

 

Is a consistant longterm 8-10% annual return realistic for your average everyday citizen? This has to include Bubba and Trixie in their trailor in Bum-eff, AL as well as Vincent the stockbroker living in Manhattan.

[Johnny Coli]

That is the beauty of my plan. You actually accumulate wealth, which is something you do not get with SS. SS is keeping the poor down. Privatizing will help the poor more than any other section of the population, in the fact that it will create wealth for them and their families. By privatizing, you are giving them the ability to invest in their future and the future of their family. Instead of the government stealing their money, they get to keep it. When they pass, they can pass that money to their family instead of losing it to the black hole that is the federal government. You also get a better rate of return with private accounts. Even the most modest of returns will beat SS in the long run.

 

If we want to help the poor, allow private accounts. SS is keeping them poor. You call privatization a "gamble." Well, SS is guaranteed...guaranteed to not be there when I retire. I have paid all of this money into a system which gives me nothing. The only way they can keep the system afloat is to take more of my money and give even less back to me in the future. Any way you slice it, the "gamble" is better. The worst thing that can happen to me is that I have nothing. With SS, I lose money. The choice is clear. The "potential" to have nothing or the guarantee to lose more than I put in.

 

It is a simple numbers game. I am still ahead with the worst case scenario in the "gamble" than I will be with SS.

366534[/snapback]

I am all for keeping the government's hands off of people's retirement money, believe me. But, maybe you could clarify some aspects of your plan, though? Would people be voluntarily deducting money from their paychecks, or would there be a mandatory base-level deduction? Basically, forcing them to put into an account the very same amount they put into SS now, with the choice of adding more. It would be very similar to a mandatory 401k.

[Johnny Coli]

So those who do should have to shoulder the costs of those who don't?

 

That's not capitalism.

366558[/snapback]

What do you do with those people? We already have people bitching about stepping over the mentally ill on their way to the ATM.

[Johnny Coli]

So, we need a government program to take care of this?

366561[/snapback]

You better have some plan in place to deal with what could become a huge homeless population. Whould you suggest we go back to slums and tent cities?

[KRC]

I am all for keeping the government's hands off of people's retirement money, believe me.  But, maybe you could clarify some aspects of your plan, though?  Would people be voluntarily deducting money from their paychecks, or would there be a mandatory base-level deduction?  Basically, forcing them to put into an account the very same amount they put into SS now, with the choice of adding more.  It would be very similar to a mandatory 401k.

366566[/snapback]

 

It will be an extension of the existing 401K system. I will take the example of my previous employer wrt profit sharing and 401k. They make regular contributions to a money market account (a holding account). It is then up to me how I want to invest the money. I can leave it in the money market account or shift it into any investment I choose (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc). My boss' philosophy was "It is my responsibility to make sure the money gets to the account. What you do with it is your choice. If you lose everything, then it sucks to be you." As with 401k, you have the option to have additional money taken out of your check for retirement. The only difference is that in this system, the company does not have mandatory contributions as with 401k.

 

Now, my SS plan is similar. You take the money currently earmarked for SS and put it into the money market account set up by the company. It is then up to you how you invest it. You can leave it in the money market account or transfer it somewhere else. No government involvement except for the normal reporting to the IRS as with 401k. The government also does not dictate what investments are acceptable (like Bush was stating).

 

Now, for people who want the government to control their money, you can have the option to take the money earmarked for SS, and send it to the SS program. You can make it part of your W2 that you fill out each year. One box will be to send the money to the money market account, the other will be a deduction from your paycheck to be sent to SS. You can even check both and set up a percentage to be sent to each.

 

SS stays intact to make those people happy. Private accounts are set up for the people who want that. Everybody wins.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

What do you do with those people?  We already have people bitching about stepping over the mentally ill on their way to the ATM.

366567[/snapback]

 

So liberal or 'income redistribution' programs aren't really about 'helping' the poor, they're really about 'making it so the poor don't become a public nuisance'.

 

Got it.

[Johnny Coli]

It will be an extension of the existing 401K system. I will take the example of my previous employer wrt profit sharing and 401k. They make regular contributions to a money market account (a holding account). It is then up to me how I want to invest the money. I can leave it in the money market account or shift it into any investment I choose (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc). My boss' philosophy was "It is my responsibility to make sure the money gets to the account. What you do with it is your choice. If you lose everything, then it sucks to be you." As with 401k, you have the option to have additional money taken out of your check for retirement. The only difference is that in this system, the company does not have mandatory contributions as with 401k.

 

Now, my SS plan is similar. You take the money currently earmarked for SS and put it into the money market account set up by the company. It is then up to you how you invest it. You can leave it in the money market account or transfer it somewhere else. No government involvement except for the normal reporting to the IRS as with 401k. The government also does not dictate what investments are acceptable (like Bush was stating).

 

Now, for people who want the government to control their money, you can have the option to take the money earmarked for SS, and send it to the SS program. You can make it part of your W2 that you fill out each year. One box will be to send the money to the money market account, the other will be a deduction from your paycheck to be sent to SS. You can even check both and set up a percentage to be sent to each.

 

SS stays intact to make those people happy. Private accounts are set up for the people who want that. Everybody wins.

366576[/snapback]

I agree with that plan, provided that you don't give people the opportuinity to NOT take part. I believe that some level of deduction should be mandatory.

[KRC]

I agree with that plan, provided that you don't give people the opportuinity to NOT take part.  I believe that some level of deduction should be mandatory.

366602[/snapback]

 

Put in a default on the W2. I would tend towards private accounts as that default with the same deduction as the current SS deduction.

 

Now, what are the chances that the spineless, limp-wristed Congress would actually pass this?

[Johnny Coli]

So liberal or 'income redistribution' programs aren't really about 'helping' the poor, they're really about 'making it so the poor don't become a public nuisance'.

 

Got it.

366583[/snapback]

I was responding to Joe's coment with a flip response.

 

Where did I ever state that SS and retirement savings are "income redistribution"?

[Johnny Coli]

Put in a default on the W2. I would tend towards private accounts as that default with the same deduction as the current SS deduction.

 

Now, what are the chances that the spineless, limp-wristed Congress would actually pass this?

366607[/snapback]

None. The problem with this issue is the same with every other issue. Someone will use a "catch phrase" that doesn't really describe the idea in a campaign to throw meat at the crowd and try to influence voters. "Partial Birth Abortion!"

[KRC]

None.  The problem with this issue is the same with every other issue.  Someone will use a "catch phrase" that doesn't really describe the idea in a campaign to throw meat at the crowd and try to influence voters.  "Partial Birth Abortion!"

366614[/snapback]

 

I have a plan for that too.

[Alaska Darin]

Is a consistant longterm 8-10% annual return realistic for your average everyday citizen? This has to include Bubba and Trixie in their trailor in Bum-eff, AL as well as Vincent the stockbroker living in Manhattan.

366564[/snapback]

Where you grow up is immaterial. The government sure as hell isn't going to give you ANY kind of return on your investment.

[Alaska Darin]

It's unrealistic to expect an 18 year old to save any money, regardless of educating them about finances (without even addressing the discrepancies between the capabilities of poorly performing inner city schools and suburban schools).

But it's more realistic to give the a really big and arrogant government a half a trillion dollars a year to redistribute for this purpose? Uh, OK.

 

We also live in a very live-now-pay-later society.

With the all too powerful and rich government leading the way. You know, the one you seem to trust to make the right decision more often than the individual.

 

I hear what you are saying about personal responsibility, but not everyone is capable of making the right decisions.

366555[/snapback]

Yeah, I hate freedom of choice too.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I hear what you are saying about personal responsibility, but not everyone is capable of making the right decisions.

366555[/snapback]

 

I fail to see how it then becomes the government's responsibility to make them for them.

 

Hell, I fail to see where the friggin' government is capable of making the right decisions. If they were, you'd think that just maybe we wouldn't need to fix so many government programs...

[MattyT]

Where you grow up is immaterial.  The government sure as hell isn't going to give you ANY kind of return on your investment.

366655[/snapback]

But you will get what you put into it.

 

Not every citizen wants (or is capable of) the responsibility of managing their own retirement account. How can the government make individual investment foolproof enough so that it works for everyone regardless of their priorities? Are there funds available that guarantee returns with little or no maintenance? Maybe so...I dunno...I struggle with my 401k. If they can't guarantee a return or equalibrium (at the very least), then we may be well on the road to the biggest welfare crisis in US history.

[Ghost of BiB]

I'm just going to work until I die. Solves the problem for me.

[Alaska Darin]

But you will get what you put into it.

 

Not every citizen wants (or is capable of) the responsibility of managing their own retirement account. How can the government make individual investment foolproof enough so that it works for everyone regardless of their priorities? Are there funds available that guarantee returns with little or no maintenance? Maybe so...I dunno...I struggle with my 401k.  If they can't guarantee a return or equalibrium (at the very least), then we may be well on the road to the biggest welfare crisis in US history.

366673[/snapback]

If people don't save on their own then SS isn't going to be the half of it.

 

What are your 401K investment options?

[Johnny Coli]

I fail to see how it then becomes the government's responsibility to make them for them.

 

Hell, I fail to see where the friggin' government is capable of making the right decisions.  If they were, you'd think that just maybe we wouldn't need to fix so many government programs... 

366661[/snapback]

It will ultimately become the government's responsiblity when these people have nothing to retire on if they make poor choices. What are you going to do with a population of geriatrics, no longer able to work, yet having zero money to live on?