Fan in San Diego Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Privatization is a good thing here. The govn't has been putting this money under a mattress for 50 years or so. We wouldnt be having this discussion if they invested the money or lent it out on real estate loans for the FHA etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Overly simplified solution: Make SS voluntary. That way, the people who want to rely on greedy politicians who have proven that they cannot effectively manage my money can do that. The people who feel that they would rather handle their own money can do that and not have SS taken out of their paychecks. If SS goes bankrupt, oh well. You gambled and lost. If your private account goes belly up, oh well you gambled and lost. If you do not rely on SS and choose to not invest money in your retirement, oh well. Sucks to be you. Here are your choices: 1) Have the politicians, who have proven to be irresponsible with your money, be responsible for your retirement by investing in a system that is doomed to fail 2) Invest my own money where there is only a potential to fail but I have control over how it is invested and how much risk I am willing to take. The choice seems clear to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Overly simplified solution: Make SS voluntary. That way, the people who want to rely on greedy politicians who have proven that they cannot effectively manage my money can do that. The people who feel that they would rather handle their own money can do that and not have SS taken out of their paychecks. If SS goes bankrupt, oh well. You gambled and lost. If your private account goes belly up, oh well you gambled and lost. If you do not rely on SS and choose to not invest money in your retirement, oh well. Sucks to be you. 278005[/snapback] This is where I side with the DEMs in assuming that most people are either stupid or lazy, and need a nanny. Private "SS" accounts were volunatry in the UK, and it turned into a near disaster. I would have more support for your plan, if I knew that there wouldn't be a major bailout down the road of the people who made the wrong choices. Better deal with the devil you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I would have more support for your plan, if I knew that there wouldn't be a major bailout down the road... 278103[/snapback] Sounds like what we are doing now. The difference is that we are trying to rescue a program that was doooomed from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Sounds like what we are doing now. The difference is that we are trying to rescue a program that was doooomed from the start. 278194[/snapback] True, but at least you can quantify the amount of the subsidy. Imagine a system where the subsidy is an open ended black hole. Oh, wait, that's Medicare & Medicaid as it exists today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 True, but at least you can quantify the amount of the subsidy. Imagine a system where the subsidy is an open ended black hole. Oh, wait, that's Medicare & Medicaid as it exists today. 278252[/snapback] Now we're talking about programs that need fixing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Now we're talking about programs that need fixing! 278472[/snapback] You don't think that SS needs to be fixed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 You don't think that SS needs to be fixed? 278475[/snapback] Are you trying to start more trouble? I just think that Medicare & Medicaid need more fixing than SS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Are you trying to start more trouble? 278562[/snapback] Who? Me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Cheney is now saying that Bush may now forgo private accounts. For people whining that Dems aren't doing anything, this has been the sticking point. Now that they're relaxing an idea that would require a $2T (read: $15T) govt kick-in to start them. If you've seen the Dem's "it'll still pay out 72 percent" argument, that's code for Make SS self-sufficient, which if there has to be SS, that's the best way to do it. So we may soon see some movement and some of the backroom ideas. Overly simplified solution: Make SS voluntary. That way, the people who want to rely on greedy politicians who have proven that they cannot effectively manage my money can do that. The people who feel that they would rather handle their own money can do that and not have SS taken out of their paychecks. If SS goes bankrupt, oh well. You gambled and lost. If your private account goes belly up, oh well you gambled and lost. If you do not rely on SS and choose to not invest money in your retirement, oh well. Sucks to be you. Here are your choices: 1) Have the politicians, who have proven to be irresponsible with your money, be responsible for your retirement by investing in a system that is doomed to fail 2) Invest my own money where there is only a potential to fail but I have control over how it is invested and how much risk I am willing to take. The choice seems clear to me. 278005[/snapback] That sounds like a great plan. Too bad it'd never happen b/c the Ponzi scheme would end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Cheney is now saying that Bush may now forgo private accounts. For people whining that Dems aren't doing anything, this has been the sticking point. Now that they're relaxing an idea that would require a $2T (read: $15T) govt kick-in to start them. If you've seen the Dem's "it'll still pay out 72 percent" argument, that's code for Make SS self-sufficient, which if there has to be SS, that's the best way to do it. So we may soon see some movement and some of the backroom ideas. 366440[/snapback] Which means that we will be addressing this again in the future with a MUCH higher pricetag. Nice job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Which means that we will be addressing this again in the future with a MUCH higher pricetag. Nice job. 366451[/snapback] Nah, the government has decided to use the computer model for fixing Social Security. Everytime the number of transistors in a processor doubles, it'll be cheaper to fix SS by half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 If SS goes bankrupt, oh well. You gambled and lost. If your private account goes belly up, oh well you gambled and lost. If you do not rely on SS and choose to not invest money in your retirement, oh well. Sucks to be you.278005[/snapback] Why would this be a good thing, Ken? You would be setting up large segments of the population that would be taking a huge risk, where if it failed, would end up having to be taken care of by the government anyway. You are making a pretty big assumption that people are intelligent enough to manage their own money and retirement. (If this was covered earlier in the thread, I apologize) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Overly simplified solution: Make SS voluntary. That way, the people who want to rely on greedy politicians who have proven that they cannot effectively manage my money can do that. The people who feel that they would rather handle their own money can do that and not have SS taken out of their paychecks. If SS goes bankrupt, oh well. You gambled and lost. If your private account goes belly up, oh well you gambled and lost. If you do not rely on SS and choose to not invest money in your retirement, oh well. Sucks to be you. Here are your choices: 1) Have the politicians, who have proven to be irresponsible with your money, be responsible for your retirement by investing in a system that is doomed to fail 2) Invest my own money where there is only a potential to fail but I have control over how it is invested and how much risk I am willing to take. The choice seems clear to me. 278005[/snapback] that plan sounds like privitizing social security with the government as one of the options to put your money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Why would this be a good thing, Ken? You would be setting up large segments of the population that would be taking a huge risk, where if it failed, would end up having to be taken care of by the government anyway. You are making a pretty big assumption that people are intelligent enough to manage their own money and retirement. (If this was covered earlier in the thread, I apologize) 366486[/snapback] If I go to Vegas and lose my life savings, why should the taxpayers be held responsible for my reckless behavior? You do not need to be an investment guru to find a safe avenue for your money. People do it all the time with their personal IRA's and other retirement accounts. There does not seem to be a problem with that, so why is there a problem with extending it to SS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 that plan sounds like privitizing social security with the government as one of the options to put your money 366493[/snapback] Give that man a prize!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 If I go to Vegas and lose my life savings, why should the taxpayers be held responsible for my reckless behavior? You do not need to be an investment guru to find a safe avenue for your money. People do it all the time with their personal IRA's and other retirement accounts. There does not seem to be a problem with that, so why is there a problem with extending it to SS? 366500[/snapback] That's not a good example. The percentage of people that go to vegas and lose everything is minor compared to what could happen if large segments of the population were gambling on their retirement. You are also leaving out the working poor, who don't exactly have a lot of money to put away and "gamble" with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 That's not a good example. The percentage of people that go to vegas and lose everything is minor compared to what could happen if large segments of the population were gambling on their retirement. You are also leaving out the working poor, who don't exactly have a lot of money to put away and "gamble" with. 366516[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 You are also leaving out the working poor, who don't exactly have a lot of money to put away and "gamble" with. 366516[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 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. 366531[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts