Thread: Social Security Privatization
June 9th, 2005, 08:48 AM #1
Social Security Privatization
I'll admit I'm a supporter of privatization. I come from the camp that says, "Let me use my own money to prepare for my own retirement rather than hand it over to bureaucrats who'll take their pound of flesh before giving what's left back to me."
It seems I've got a most unexpected ally. To wit:
I like (Richard) Freeman’s idea of providing each individual with a trust fund when young rather than retirement benefits when old, but we had better realize that this is a significant change in the character of the social insurance system … Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today’s young may well get less than they put in).
June 9th, 2005, 09:38 AM #2
I'm not sure if this has been posted but Dave Ramsey has a great calculator to help you determine how much you would have when you retire IF you were to have a privitized Social Security account.
Check it out here:
June 9th, 2005, 09:45 AM #3
I am for it.
Give me some g-damn choice for once!New Dad since 07/06/2005
June 9th, 2005, 09:45 AM #4
If this is off topic please tell me, 22 years old will hopefully be going full time with my job in July. Starting around 32k and want to figure out what the best bet to start saving money and investing for the future and retirement.
June 9th, 2005, 09:51 AM #5
The best way to save for retirement is to first save up about 3-6 living expenses in a savings account for emergencies.
Next pay off all your debt except your house and never borrow money again.
Then put 15%+ toward retirement. The best order to invest is like this:
(If your company matches) 401K only up to the max. match amount THEN everything else goes into a Roth IRA and if you happen to max it out then go back to investing in the 401K.
June 9th, 2005, 09:54 AM #6
hrm since i work for a school they have something called a 403b (i guess since its a non profit organization)
I dont have much debit, working on paying off a credit card and i have about 2 grand on my car left. (which i plan to pay off when i go full time)
I will have some loans to pay off also for school.
June 9th, 2005, 09:57 AM #7
Good deal... I would try to put atleast $1000 in savings for emergencies and attack what little debt you have with a vengence!
I work for a school too.. I currently work as an IT Technologist at UT in Knoxville and they offer the same 403b but unless you plan to work for that school for the rest of our life go with the 401k match because you are instantly doubling your money and you can roll it over when you get a new job.
June 9th, 2005, 10:00 AM #8
Yah im not planning to stay here for a long time, it seems many who work in the school sector get stuck cause its an easy job with no fear of losing it.
Since i have a year left im thinking of going into the AF OTS program i want to be as clear as i can of debt and have some cash for when im done with school.
Thanks for the info kid!
June 9th, 2005, 10:24 AM #9
No problem.. if you get a chance pick up a book called My Total Money Makeover written by Dave Ramsey. I know Brandon is probably sick of hearing about it BUT it's a great bok and the younger you are to implement the plan the more wealth you will have to retire on.
June 9th, 2005, 10:31 AM #10Originally Posted by osprey4I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
June 9th, 2005, 10:48 AM #11
Never mind. I found it:I like Freeman's idea of providing each individual with a trust fund when young rather than retirement benefits when old, but we had better realize that this is a significant change in the character of the social insurance system. Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in).
Freeman's scheme, however, will necessarily be frankly redistributionist, because the trust fund you receive when young cannot be based on what you will actually pay into the system over the rest of your life. Presumably the size of the trust fund will be the same for everyone-which means that some people will receive much more than the present value of the trust-fund taxes they pay over the rest of their lives, others much less. Now I don't have any problem with that kind of redistribution, but I think we had better realize that it will face intense opposition, that its "capitalistic" aspects will probably not buy off many of the critics.
Put it this way: Freeman may think that it is a shared value that everyone should have an equal chance at the start of life; but it isn't. On the contrary, recent news reports tell us that the next big push by tax-cutters will be a drive to eliminate the inheritance tax-that is, what the right wants more than anything else is to allow the wealthy to pass on their status to their children.I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
June 9th, 2005, 10:50 AM #12
June 9th, 2005, 11:20 AM #13
The privitization of Social Security will not be any different than the options Federal Employees already get. You choose the fund you want you $$ put into just like Fed employees. It's funny how congressmen can be so skitish about implementing a plan that they themselves already use.
June 9th, 2005, 12:52 PM #14Originally Posted by Theophylact
June 9th, 2005, 12:56 PM #15
A joke. Perhaps not the funniest possible one, but a joke nevertheless. Perhaps I should have used a smiley, or labeled it "humor", the way Playboy does.I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
June 9th, 2005, 02:14 PM #16
Sorry, incorrect perception on my part. I should know you better by now.
June 9th, 2005, 03:11 PM #17
What Social Security privatizers neglect is that the current SS system is more than a retirement system. It is also an insurance system that pays out approx. 30% of the money to widows and orphans. The privatization scheme does away with that and uses 100% of the money (save the brokerage fees) for investments. Thus, comparing the two systems is like comparing apples to oranges.Conservatives: "If the facts disagree with our opinion, ignore the facts -- or at least misrepresent them."
June 9th, 2005, 03:44 PM #18
The current proposal to privatize SS does not call to do away completely with SS. It allows you to take a % of your SS and put it toward a government fund (i.e. C Fund) You still have about 10% that gets paid out to SS.
June 9th, 2005, 03:45 PM #19
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- almost Virginia
- Blog Entries
widows and orphans... Ya know what that sounds real nice but what about single moms why not pay them. and single working moms, they should not work it would not be fair to make them work and then pay for some other single woman through death.
Orphans well that one is a bit harder for me to bash but when you get down to the orphan level I am not all that sure that they are uncovered. They will end up in the forster care system anyway so they are taken care of.
there is really not a single genuine "fair" reason for SSI to exist in it's current state. It pays for people to retire and others never get to retire due to early death, still others can not live on it so are still forced to work. Why should one person get to retire for 10 years on the government and another get nothing.
Especially when you think that the original FDR plan only paid the smallest fraction of the Uber old folks. 50% of people died in the area of 11 years before the first payout. even less actually made it to payout time and got to collect anything. let alone those who managed to get a fair payout. A program that pays you for having lived longer than the guy who worked just as hard as you till the day he died is rediculous. What did the 62 year old guy on SSI in 1955 do that the 59 year old guy did not do in his life. You are paying people off for living longer. Well what an achievement for society. A guy with better genes lived an extra 3 years and may very well have done less for society than that 59 year old who worked himself to death at 59.
It is a rediculous concept.
June 9th, 2005, 04:10 PM #20
I think I heard at one point that SS was paid for mainly by black men for old white women to retire one. Somehow, statistically it was noted that since black men have shortest life expectancy and white women live longer that's how the system is starting to pan out.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By Theophylact in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 23Last Post: July 29th, 2008, 09:16 PM
By dlpetey in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 27Last Post: April 16th, 2005, 10:43 AM
By Chuckiechan in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 40Last Post: October 20th, 2004, 06:22 PM
By TOAD6147 in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 6Last Post: January 13th, 2004, 04:42 PM
By Atomic Rooster in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 4Last Post: December 11th, 2003, 03:29 PM