Privatize Social Secruity

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by CParso, Mar 15, 2005.

  1. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    This won't work, taxes were already raised in the late 80's and all congress
    did was spend, spend, spend.
    The problem with social security is we can't keep our congressmans hands out of the cookie jar.


    For those that are interested look at Chile's social security program.http://countrystudies.us/chile/45.htm
    http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/1999/chile.htm
     
  2. tiger fan 2001

    tiger fan 2001 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,987
    Likes Received:
    5
    Interesting the the bottom line in everything you said is to control your spending. Otherwise none of this other stuff happens. Our government is out of control with pork spending and that's why we have a problem. Between what I pay and the ridiculous taxes we should have money coming out this countries ying yang. I agree that it is personal resposnibilities but they need to stay the hell out of my check. :angryfire
     
  3. NoLimitMD

    NoLimitMD Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    366
    I think you meant to say "out of NoLimitMD's paycheck."
     
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    If everybody pays and everybody draws, then no one is robbed.

    Well, SS was started to keep impoverished elderly people from living on the streets, begging, or starving, not to be a pension plan for retirement. And it's not just stupid people looking for a free lunch. There are plenty of elderly widows, pensioners whose illnesses ate up their savings, disabled folks who can't work,'etc. Social Security has never paid enough for these people to live high on the hog. But, combined with Medicare benefits it can keep a destitute old duffer fed and housed, period.

    When social security was created, people had an average life expectancy of 60 years and most folks worked until they died or were disabled. SS provided some modest income for a few last years for a few million poor old folks who reached the advanced age of 65 and could no longer work. But now people have a life expectancy of 77 years and try to retire in their mid-fifties. 25 or 30 years is a long time to live in retirement on a subsistence income.

    Of course, those of use who planned and saved will enjoy a long and comfortable retirement. Those that did not . . . will not. Most of those folks will have to work until they drop. Social security and medicare should provide those people (and widows and orphans, too) a subsistence income and benefits and it should come from their SS withholdings during their first 65 years.

    If I pay the same rate as they did and receive the same benefits (whether I need them or not), then I have not been robbed.
     
  5. NoLimitMD

    NoLimitMD Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    366
    Come on Red, you can't be serious. First, it's a dubious proposition that that money will be there when I retire. But mainly, there's not a one to one ratio. Screw the RATE. If I put in $500 a month, in 35 years, I want the appreciated value of that a month, which is probably in the neighborhood of $3000. I don't want other people that were less fortunate or didn't work as hard to "share" in my contributions, even if we paid the same rate.
     
  6. TigerWins

    TigerWins Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    157
    But that's not the case with the current system. Some people pay into the system and don't get anything out of it. If I died today, I'd get nothing out of it. This is where the private accounts would help ... a portion would go to my estate.

    Then there are those who get a helluva lot more out of the system than they ever paid into the system.

    The question I always wondered ... if social security is a good thing, why do we allow government employees to set up their own program and not participate in SS?
     
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Sure, I understand. That is exactly why I save for retirement in a number of ways. Social security isn't supposed to be a retirement plan. It's a subsistence income to feed you if you fall on hard times and lose it all. You could go through your savings in a couple of years with deep debt and medical expenses. Social security and Medicare will at least meet your basic needs for as long as you live. It's just a basement subsistence income that no American should have to go below when they are old and dependent. Social Security is a national committment saying that we don't let old people live in cardboard boxes in this country, no matter what their circumstances. It ain't a ticket to ride. Never has been.

    You astonish me. "Every man for himself" is not the American way.
     
  8. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    and "the government takes your hard earned money by force because people are too stupid to save" is the american way?

    i actually do not feel like it is justified to force me to pay for my fellow man. i dont care if my fellow man lives or dies. if you like him so much, you pay for him.
     
  9. NoLimitMD

    NoLimitMD Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    366
    I disagree. If there is any country that was founded on personal responsibility and work ethic, it's the US. Maybe Europe and Canada enjoy abdicating individual efforts in the name of protecting their citizens, but the US has been and should be about rewarding success and punishing failure. Simple as that.

    I would be more amenable to SS if the contribution wasn't a %, but a flat amount. So, whatever I put in, I'll get out, and it's the same for anybody else. But that will never happen, b/c we have to pander to the masses who choose to not work harder to be more successful. NOTE: I would still hate this system, but not with the same passion.

    I completely understand your point about SS being intended to keep the elderly from living on the streets. I really do. That's not a situation with which I would be comfortable. However, I do not like the fact that I cannot choose, as an adult taxpayer and citizen, to opt out of the program and rely on MYSELF to provide for my retirement. If other people would rather the gov't take that money and squander it for them, fine. I should have the right to opt out.
     
  10. TigerWins

    TigerWins Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,666
    Likes Received:
    157
    Amercians have become lazy over the last 30-40 years. Many have lost their pride and would rather take government handouts instead of working. Too many people refuse to work for low wages when they get to sit home and collect from Uncle Sam. Our government, for the most part, is responsible for this by providing free handouts to anyone who wants it.

    I do believe we have a responsibilty to help those who can't help themselves, but that shouldn't include lazy people. There are some who are physically and mentally unable to help themselves. Some are hard working people stuck in low wage jobs that will need some help.

    I don't mind helping these people, but the rest of them don't deserve one cent of my tax dollars!
     

Share This Page