A good point. My feeling is that there are already several privately-managed, tax-deferred retirement plans like IRAs, Keoghs, 479s, or 401Ks for people to contribute to. There are many thousands of sotcks and mutual fund that you can buy yourself. Why create yet another retirement plan that offers profits balanced against risks? Why not just let people opt to allot a portion of their SS contributions to their IRA, with the penalty of reduced SS benefits? But there still needs to be a basic SS benefit that is guaranteed--subsistence-level only. The Great Depression wiped out most people's savings in the 30's and SS was created because folks saw how bad things could get for the elderly. We are living in Fat City right now, but Hard Times could come again. Private plans already exist without creating another government agency. This talk of replacing Social Security with another privately managed plan is politics designed to mask the fact that what they are also doing is lowering the SS benefits to below the subsistence level. This defeats the whole purpose of social security--to create a basement income for the dependent elderly. They may still be living in poverty, but they are at least not starving. The reverse is also true. What is important is a plan that has overall balance between income and payouts. Not any government employee can do so. Many contribute to SS. Social security is not a pension plan, it is a government entitlement that offers only a basic financial security to qualified elderly people. Some government agencies found a need to offer a proper pension plan to compete with those offered by private industry in order to attract and keep quality employees. For those pension plans that met strict federal requirements including guaranteed payments and health care provisions, it was determined that Social Security was redundant for them. They pay more contributions into these pension plans than they would into SS. Since they don't pay into SS, they are not entitled to SS benefits. There are other pensions that do not meet these requirements and their employees pay into both systems and receive benefits from both systems.
But I'm not sure I see the need, or fully understand, why the state of Louisiana needs to set up a program for state employees that will basically do what SS will do. State employees can contribute some of their own money, in addition to the mandatory contributions, but it seems like this is nothing more than a SS program with a personal account option. There is a big financial hole in the state's system, just like SS.
I'm not talking about a "cradle to grave" European-style "everybody gets the same thing" socialist policy. The quality of your retirement is what you make it. Always has been. SS just sets a bare minimum. Americans don't want elderly Americans who were not as fortunate to live among us in third-world squalor. Who are these masses who choose not to work? Unemployment is extremely low in this country. We're talking about average people who have reached the age of 67 and mostly worked thir way there. Where does this notion that social security beneficiaries are freeloaders come from? They contributed all of their lives. If you don't contribute at least 10 years into the program, you are not eligible for SS benefits at all. And your benefits are based upon how much you contributed, everyone is not equal. These are working people, you and me included, that have definitely contributed. People on welfare don't get social security, they stay on welfare. That is another issue. Well, I see your point. A person should have the right to choose his own path. But . . . say you fell on hard times and lost everything and were a destitute old fart. With no social security benefits, you would have to go on welfare and live in the projects . . . and you would be costing the rest of us in taxes. At least in SS you would have been a contributor and you would be better off than on welfare.
State pensions are complete pensions similar to corporate pensions and include medical insurance. It is in no way basically similar to social security which is not a pension at all. Just a benefit similar to Medicare that offers basic minimums. State pensions offer much more and in that respect make social security redundant. State pensions cost more also, and their contributors are not entitled to social security or medicare benefits. Perhaps personal retirement plans like 401Ks could evolve into personal comprehensive pension plans as well, allowing their particpants to make it an alternative to SS. Pension plans, just like social security, must pay for themselves. If you pay more you get more, if you pay less, you get less. Pension contributions must occasionally be raised or payouts lowered. Social security taxes may have to be raised to keep current benefits or the benefits may have to be lowered to keep the same contributions. The people should decide.
so you are good person, you wnt to help your fellow man, why do you want to come to my house and force your will upon me? why is it the job of the government to take people's money and save it for them as a collective? red, you always whine about deficits and spending, and at the same time you favor big government programs. people like you are the reason spending is so high, becuse you insist on the government managing a larger portion of people's lives. you want to take away freedom and choice in the name of feelgood programs. incredibly expensive programs. why waste loads of money on a massive beauracracy when people could just manage their own lives? cant private churches or charities manage the poor? cant people actually choose who or what they give their money to without the government in their pocket? is it too much to ask to just let people control their own property? nobody will take an honest stance of personal responsibilty, it sounds too unpc and harsh. spineless.
I don't and I don't. I never said that, you're raving. That's not how social security works. Money is collected each year and is expended each year. It is not a friggin' pension! What I've advocated here is NOT creating another reteirement plan to supplement SS! Read it again. Never said that. You are raving again. Why don't you address an actual remark of mine. I don't suppose you would consider taking Government 101 over? Or World History for that matter. Have you been reading "The Anarchist's Cookbook" again? Now this is truly amusing. The atheist is calling upon churches to manage the poor. Priceless. One last time. This isn't about welfare for the poor. SS is a plan your elected government decided upon to reward working citizens, who contributed all their working careers, some small assistance in their elderly years, when many need it badly. It ain't about them and us. You and I also are going to be elderly some day. --- "We have found the enemy . . . and he is us" -- Pogo
Ultimately, the people that we should be most upset with is probably the first generation that was dumb enough to let the Great Depression happen, lose everything, pay nothing into anything, and then start collecting checks. THEY'RE the ones at fault here. Other than the AARP and Congress, of course. :hihi:
When I turned 50, the local paper lowered my bill by 50% as long as I pay a year in advance. My first old folks benefit. A few more breaks like this and I won't have to worry so much about social security. :lol: (visual --- me, an ole man in overalls planting a victory garden) :bncry:
are we too stupid to save for ourselves? you say SS "rewards" working citizens. ok. how is it a reward to have your money taken from you against your will? how is it a reward to not be able to invest your own money as you see fit? how is a reward to effectively be forced to loan your money to the govvernment until you are old? how is it a reward to effectively lose all the money if you die before you can collect? how is it a reward to be forced to pay a huge beauracracy adminstrative fees to the government to manage your money? assuming you do come out ahead and actually get more money than you paid, then it IS welfare, and you are taking money you didnt pay in, money that isnt yours. yeah that actually is a "reward", but certainly one you didnt earn. why is the government so paternalistic? why are they effectively forcing me to buy their insurance? what about my rights as an individual? they key here is freedom and choice, i want freedom, and the choice to spend as save as i choose. you want big brother to forcibly take money from my pocket because they know whats good for me. they will dispense my money back to me if i live long enough, at a rate they find acceptable. hey, ITS MY MONEY, DONT TAKE IT AT ALL! maybe if people didnt depend on social security they would take some personal responsibility and save and invest, then the money could go where they want it, and maybe do some work in the economy instead of going to the govt beauracracy. maybe employers would start offering better savings plans, maybe people would just save more, maybe charities would take care of those who were morons and didnt save enough. anything is good as long as we dont use the coercive power of the government to tke things from people for our feelgood old people insurance.
