It's hard to put the cat back in the bag, but if somehow SS could be the fall back, or second source of retirement income, I'd be more comfortable with a private option. It stopped being the "safety net" a long time ago for the majority of Americans.

It's an all-or-nothing thing by nature, and it would harm way more than it would help while enriching a very small handful of people. Sounds like a pretty terrible idea to me.

 

Ah yes, the "people-are-too-stupid-for-their-own-good-so-government-should-do-everything-for-them" argument.

 

It's hard to put the cat back in the bag, but if somehow SS could be the fall back, or second source of retirement income, I'd be more comfortable with a private option. It stopped being the "safety net" a long time ago for the majority of Americans.

 

I think it is still very much the safety net for the majority of Americans.

 

I know many senior citizens that would have NO income with out it, and that number will merely grow. A majority of Americans are in debt (not via mortgage debt or student loan debt), but outright debt. They will have no savings when they retire aside from SS.

Ah yes, the "people-are-too-stupid-for-their-own-good-so-government-should-do-everything-for-them" argument.

 

In this case, they are. You'd end up with a majority population with nothing after retirement, and you'd still have to take care of them -- unless of course you enact some sort of famine law and just mow them all down with machine guns to "take them off the books".

Edited December 21, 201015 yr by Y2HH

Exactly, like I said, it would benefit people like myself. But for all the others who try, fail and lose everything...then what? It would cause more potential problems than it would solve. For the good of the many, this needs to be left alone, despite the fact that it would benefit me.

 

What kinds of problems exactly? So because some stupid people will spend their money we should deny other people the option of investing THEIR OWN MONEY as they see fit? If that's the worry then put up some sort of requirement for opting out of social security (i.e., must be invested in something, can't just be spent as cash).

 

But we deal with this situation in other areas of society. We allow people to buy houses despite knowing that a good number of them are too stupid to understand the terms of the deal or what they can actually afford. This ends up costing society as a whole too, but we (democrats) still demand that banks lend to those people because home ownership is a "right" in this country.

In this case, they are.

 

They being a minority, not the majority.

In this case, they are. You'd end up with a majority population with nothing after retirement, and you'd still have to take care of them -- unless of course you enact some sort of famine law and just mow them all down with machine guns to "take them off the books".

 

Ah, you mean like medicare and other subsidies the government provides the elderly? Do old people really live on their SS income? Isn't the whole problem right now that SS isn't enough for a lot of people?

 

What kinds of problems exactly? So because some stupid people will spend their money we should deny other people the option of investing THEIR OWN MONEY as they see fit? If that's the worry then put up some sort of requirement for opting out of social security (i.e., must be invested in something, can't just be spent as cash).

 

But we deal with this situation in other areas of society. We allow people to buy houses despite knowing that a good number of them are too stupid to understand the terms of the deal or what they can actually afford. This ends up costing society as a whole too, but we (democrats) still demand that banks lend to those people because home ownership is a "right" in this country.

 

Yes, because in this case there is nothing on the back end to save them...because this WAS designed to save them.

 

So, in essence, it's one sacrifice you and I have to make for the good of the many. Oh, and stop taking about "stupid people", because most smart people have no idea how to invest either...including the majority of people on this message board.

Ah, you mean like medicare and other subsidies the government provides the elderly? Do old people really live on their SS income? Isn't the whole problem right now that SS isn't enough for a lot of people?

 

Exactly. SS is barely enough now...so have them lose it and then what? In this scenario, while not perfect, they have something...in the other scenario, the majority would end up with even less, or even nothing. It's just a bad bad idea to privatize it even though it would benefit the few of us who DO know how to invest.

Ah yes, the "people-are-too-stupid-for-their-own-good-so-government-should-do-everything-for-them" argument.

 

Ah yes, the "social safety nets are a good thing and we shouldn't try to enrich a very small number of (already very wealthy) people at the expense of everyone else" argument.

I find it odd I'm fighting for a social safety net here...I must have jumped into the other dimension.

Ah yes, the "social safety nets are a good thing and we shouldn't try to enrich a very small number of (already very wealthy) people at the expense of everyone else" argument.

 

How is me taking out my SS contribution and using that money to invest on my own at the expense of everyone else?

What kinds of problems exactly? So because some stupid people will spend their money we should deny other people the option of investing THEIR OWN MONEY as they see fit? If that's the worry then put up some sort of requirement for opting out of social security (i.e., must be invested in something, can't just be spent as cash).

 

Yep, the great Republican meme of "poor people are poor because they're stupid and blow their money instead of investing!" Yeah, sorry. My grandpa had a good job, was cheap his entire life and invested in 'safe' options. Even with that, and with his pension, and with SS, my grandma's expenses are still too much.

 

Opting out would destroy the system, sorry.

 

But we deal with this situation in other areas of society. We allow people to buy houses despite knowing that a good number of them are too stupid to understand the terms of the deal or what they can actually afford. This ends up costing society as a whole too, but we (democrats) still demand that banks lend to those people because home ownership is a "right" in this country.

 

LOL, I love the racial subtext here (that's what the fair lending laws are about).

 

edit: bankers made s***loads of money off of these loans, not a good counter-example to more financial industry handouts.

Edited December 21, 201015 yr by StrangeSox

How is me taking out my SS contribution and using that money to invest on my own at the expense of everyone else?

 

Do you understand how SS works?

Yes, because in this case there is nothing on the back end to save them...because this WAS designed to save them.

 

So, in essence, it's one sacrifice you and I have to make for the good of the many. Oh, and stop taking about "stupid people", because most smart people have no idea how to invest either...including the majority of people on this message board.

 

I love how we're throwing out terms like "them" and "they," not "me" or "I," which is precisely the problem. I'm not arguing we scrap the "safety net" for "them," I'm saying let me take my portion out and put it to something else.

I love how we're throwing out terms like "them" and "they," not "me" or "I," which is precisely the problem. I'm not arguing we scrap the "safety net" for "them," I'm saying let me take my portion out and put it to something else.

 

Do you understand how SS works?

I love how we're throwing out terms like "them" and "they," not "me" or "I," which is precisely the problem. I'm not arguing we scrap the "safety net" for "them," I'm saying let me take my portion out and put it to something else.

 

There cannot be an "opt out" for the SS system as designed, or it cannot work. It would collapse without "you" or "I", which is the problem in what you're suggesting.

Do you understand how SS works?

 

Nope, explain it to me, with an explanation of how a minority of people taking out their contribution (while also not receiving any payments later) will greatly screw the rest of society.

There cannot be an "opt out" for the SS system as designed, or it cannot work. It would collapse without "you" or "I", which is the problem in what you're suggesting.

 

Really? So if you die today and stop contributing the SS fund collapses?

Nope, explain it to me, with an explanation of how a minority of people taking out their contribution (while also not receiving any payments later) will greatly screw the rest of society.

 

 

Where did this magical limitation come from?

 

Where did this magical limitation come from?

 

I'm assuming it, just like you're assuming the majority would opt out.

Public workers do get a lot more than private workers on average...if you fail to control for education and for experience level. If you look at the average pay that you would get for the same job for a public position versus a private position, the differences vanish, and it winds up being a question of the exact type of work you're really doing.

 

The "Public workers are overpaid!" meme is another of those things Fox News loves to harp on, that ought to tell you how accurate it is.

 

 

No. The pension deficits do that for us. Why not mandate the same retirement age for public workers as SSA does for private workers. Prety much solve the insolvency issue.

Really? So if you die today and stop contributing the SS fund collapses?

 

You just answered your own question.

 

You and I wouldn't be the only two people taking our money out. MOST people would, especially when convinced they could be and should be making more money elsewhere. The con artists would come out of the woodwork with bad investment advice for the plethora of people who trust them, and most would wind up losing money, and a lot of it. They'd collectively collapse the entire system, and the last safety net they have to rely on for retirement would be gone. As bad as it is now because its underfunded, imagine if they wound up with nothing, which would happen to a lot more than you think...it'd create an entire era of welfare recipients that have no other choice since their SS is gone the way of the dodo.

I'm assuming it, just like you're assuming the majority would opt out.

 

I didn't assume a majority. I don't know where the tipping point it, but like any other insurance product, I'm sure it's much less than 50%+1.

 

This is an older article from 2005, when Republicans were pushing to privatize SS, but it lays out the basic problems with the Republican rhetoric and conceptions of Social Security.

You just answered your own question.

 

You and I wouldn't be the only two people taking our money out. MOST people would, especially when convinced they could be and should be making more money elsewhere. The con artists would come out of the woodwork with bad investment advice for the plethora of people who trust them, and most would wind up losing money, and a lot of it. They'd collectively collapse the entire system, and the last safety net they have to rely on for retirement would be gone. As bad as it is now because its underfunded, imagine if they wound up with nothing, which would happen to a lot more than you think...it'd create an entire era of welfare recipients that have no other choice since their SS is gone the way of the dodo.

 

Well, there are idiots everywhere, in every facet of our society, but that doesn't mean we should preclude people from having the choice. By your logic the government should be in charge of EVERYTHING because there's ALWAYS the potential for risk and loss.

 

And my answer would be to put some requirements on this. You have to make X amount before being able to opt out. You have show proof that you're putting that money in long term instruments. If you take an X% hit in that investment, you have to opt back in, etc etc.