This Forum has been archived there is no more new posts or threads ... use this link to report any abusive content
==> Report abusive content in this page <==
Post Reply 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hey tell me what you think about my way of fixing social security?
04-08-2014, 03:20 AM
Post: #11
There are numerous holes in this.
Who lends the money (at no interest?). However you do this would increase the demand for money and so have an impact on interest rates and inflation.
Similarly everyone having 2-4 million will be inflationairy itself.
Who determines which stocks are bought? What if they chose Enron?
Why should someone who dies and has paid off a large proportion of thier loan not be allowed to pass this on?
What about people that work/live part of thier life outside of the USA? How do you enforce the loan payments from them?
If someone dead will pay my loan for me why would I want to work.

Apart from the loan what you propose is similar to many countries solutions. Rather than a central social security fund they approve certain funds to look after mandatory retirement accounts. These are funded by a mandated proportion of the individual's wages (whether paid by the employer or the individual) and by voluntary payments. Similar rules apply regarding the time it can be withdrawn.


Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2014, 03:24 AM
Post: #12
Wow, I didn't know Buddha was such a socialist rich-hater with a horrible idea of what would fix the broken system...

Your plan wouldn't work too well. The market overall loses every one out of four years, but has had an average of almost 12% since its creation. You're on the right path, but it would be a major step backwards to hand each child born in America $70,000 worth of debt, even if it is interest-free. Listen to Dave Ramsey to figure out why.

The current system will fail eventually and so far the only other plans to save it are to reduce benefits, raise the retirement age, or have a very socialistic, steep progressive tax system that would create a further disincentive for high income earners.

Basically privatizing social security would give the people that pay into the system, i.e. you and me, the power to decide where it's invested. So part of your plan describes this, but the debt is what wouldn't work.

It really bugs me that there is still a large part of the population who believe that people can't retire without the help of the government, and people like Buddha seem to be perpetuating it. I really hope that someone will at least partially privatize social security retirement benefits because:

1. I'm a firm believer that I can handle my money more responsibly than the government.

2. Personal responsibility is not something that people take pride in these days and that needs to change.

3. The current system has a negative rate of return.

4. The system is going to go bankrupt, and so far there are only two major solutions: tax my income and gains on my investments into oblivion just because other people aren't smart enough to save for themselves or partially or fully privatize the retirement part of the system.

The democrats have expressed interest in raising capital gains tax rates to help pay for SS, which will tax the hell out of people like me who are being responsible and investing for myself so I can have a secure retirement and giving that money to people who either weren't smart enough or were too late in their investing. This is a massive injustice.

You'll hear many arguments against privatization, but it helps to know where social security came from.

The Social Security Act was enacted in 1935 as part of the New Deal. It was signed into law by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The first payroll taxes were collected in 1937 and the first monthly payment was delivered in 1940.

The retirement benefits were never meant to provide 100% of a person's income after 65, but rather to just supplement their savings. (This does not include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) which is a welfare program for peoples over 65).

So, when Bush wanted to partially privatize the system, special interest groups came up with quirky commercials and eventually succeeded in destroying the plan, and thus destroying the only thing at that point that could've helped solve the problem of the system going bankrupt.

On a side note, people like you always seem to whip out the "put your future at the mercy of the stock market" argument to scare people. If you spend 30 minutes learning the basics of investing, namely the importance of having a well diversified stock portfolio (which is easily achieved by mutual funds), you can reduce the risk tremendously.

That being said, what Bush wanted to do in 2005 was partially privatize the system, allowing for less strain on the government and more earning potential for our money that is, quite literally, stolen from us in the form of payroll taxes.

Currently 15.3% of our paychecks are taken by the government in the form of payroll taxes. Only 7.65% is actually taken out of our paycheck, the other 7.65% being payed by your employer.

Bush's plan was to let us decide where 4% of the 15.3% was invested. That would leave the remaining 11.3% for the government to use the old way.

All Bush wanted to do was give us, the people, a choice of how our SS money was invested. All he wanted to do was let us control how 4% of the 15.3%

Is that really that crazy of an idea? I don't think so.

But Democrats and the God-forsaken AARP started a nice smear campaign that shut that proposal down quick, fast, and in a hurry.

I believe that partial-privatization is one of the many answers that we have to consider to fix our crippled system. But until our politicians on both sides can put aside political bickering, which won't happen anytime soon, there will be no fix.

And, again, don't buy into the whole "you'll end up like Enron" arguments. Anyone dumb enough to invest solely in single stocks must not care too much for their financial future.

Anybody who learns even a little about investing will figure out that you must have a very diverse portfolio of investments in order to protect yourself from hiccups like Enron.

Millions of Americans invest on their own and make a lot of money to secure their retirement. It's not just rich people who benefit from the stock market.

You've got the right idea, but the real answer is privatizing the system, with exception of the disability insurance and TEMPORARY welfare benefits, lowering the capital gains tax to ZERO, and convincing the government that it needs to stay the hell out of our lives and finances by paying down the national debt and eventually eliminating the federal income tax. That will give us all the freedom to save for our own retirement, and it will give us the strength to get off of the government teat, showing the world that you don't need socialism to have a healthy, safe population.

Hope this helps!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2014, 03:26 AM
Post: #13
First off, the government (especially the federal government), should not be mandating any type of forced savings program such as Social Security. In theory it sounds good but Constitutionally it isn't a sound idea.

Now, that aside, if we are to keep the social security program we simply should allow the free people of this great nation to make their own choices on how they want to invest their own money. After all, this is not the government's money. The government has nothing unless they take it from us.

Individuals should then be able to invest in a multitude of investment options from the stock market, mutual funds, gold, real estate, bonds or a simple traditional savings account. This account should then be owned by the individual so they can withdraw money at the age they choose for retirment and they can also will their account to family upon death.

The only way to fix any of our problems is to maximize freedom and choice and reduce government involvement.


Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2014, 03:27 AM
Post: #14
Putting aside your specific proposal, you make an important point: The only way to make Social Security work is to invest our FICA taxes to earn a market rate of return. As it is now, the “return” is negative. Every dime that has ever been paid into SS is gone. It’s been spent. You and I have lost 100% of whatever we have paid in. The so-called SS “Trust Fund” is sitting on IOUs issued by the Treasury.

Enron’s 401k retirement funds were almost exactly like our SS retirement “funds.” Enron took its employees’ contributions, bought its own stock with the money, and spent the money. Then Enron went bankrupt. SS takes our contributions, “buys” Treasury Bills and Notes, and the government spends the money. It’s a sham.

Costa Rica has a retirement plan that takes its citizens’ retirement contributions and invests them in the residential mortgage market to earn a market rate of return, so the citizens’ retirement accounts are invested in hard assets, not worthless pieces of paper – or journal entries. If SS is so secure, why is the government now talking about SS going bankrupt? Why is the government talking about cutting retirement benefits and raising payroll taxes? It’s because those of us who are working today are paying the taxes that are used to pay the benefits of retirees, and as the ratio of retirees to working people increases as our population ages there will be fewer workers to pay for the benefits of more retirees.

Great Buddha - The fact is that the top 1% of income earners pay about 47% of all personal income taxes and the top 5% pay well over 50% of all those taxes. And that does not include what the “rich” pay in SS and Medicare taxes. The poor pay little or no income taxes. The government has tried to fool us into believing that we can solve the problem with SS by increasing taxes on the rich, but why would we need to do that if the money you and I have already paid into SS is “invested” in Treasury bills and notes? It’s not invested; it’s been spent. It’s gone.

Please read this carefully:

In this situation the rich and the poor are in the same boat. That boat has sprung a leak. We’d better seal the leak rather than fight over the life jackets because we’re way out to sea and a life jacket will just keep whoever gets it afloat a little longer until the sharks decide they want a meal that’s alive and kicking.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Forum Jump:

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)