Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
its a strawman argument. privatization of social security doesnt mean putting your money in the hands of "wall street." it means giving people ownership of their savings and allowing them to make decisions on what is done with it.
An that would mean putting it into the hands of paid thieves.
An that would mean putting it into the hands of paid thieves.
it absolutely doesnt mean that. there are a lot of options available that could be given to people that wouldnt put anything in the hands of anyone on "wall street."
as it currently stands, last time the government had a budget showdown, obama claimed that social security checks may not go out. we all know that there is currently a huge amount of "money" in social security from the funds built up over many years of paying out less than it took in. so with all of that "money" how is it possible that it cant pay out funds in the event of a failure to raise the debt limit? the president held social security recipients hostage to use them for political maneuvering. so thats not really great for them. if you want, i can list a variety of options for private accounts. even if you just gave someone an official count that they own and still require them to buy treasuries (sick but ok we will say that), that would be a step up from the current system. why do you think people in the current system arent given ownership of their own savings? the government makes it clear that social security benefits arent guaranteed and can change at any time. you have no legal protection if government decides to change the rules in the middle (or towards the end) of the game.
it absolutely doesnt mean that. there are a lot of options available that could be given to people that wouldnt put anything in the hands of anyone on "wall street."
as it currently stands, last time the government had a budget showdown, obama claimed that social security checks may not go out. we all know that there is currently a huge amount of "money" in social security from the funds built up over many years of paying out less than it took in. so with all of that "money" how is it possible that it cant pay out funds in the event of a failure to raise the debt limit? the president held social security recipients hostage to use them for political maneuvering. so thats not really great for them. if you want, i can list a variety of options for private accounts. even if you just gave someone an official count that they own and still require them to buy treasuries (sick but ok we will say that), that would be a step up from the current system. why do you think people in the current system arent given ownership of their own savings? the government makes it clear that social security benefits arent guaranteed and can change at any time. you have no legal protection if government decides to change the rules in the middle (or towards the end) of the game.
You're right.I agree with what you say.What I am saying is that out of the two Privet or Government,I'll take the goverment.
The general public would do a terrible job managing their social security money. I work in banking, I see it all the time. People taking money out of their retirement accounts before retirement age despite the penalties and tax implications. With that said, I'm with Captain NJ on this. I'd rather pick my own investments. I don't think this is realistic for the general public unless there are some serious restrictions on withdrawals before retirement age. And before you retort, I already know you how you probably feel about the government telling you what to do with your own money. But access to select your own investments with a restriction on withdrawals before a certain age would be , I think, a happy compromise.
The general public would do a terrible job managing their social security money. I work in banking, I see it all the time. People taking money out of their retirement accounts before retirement age despite the penalties and tax implications. With that said, I'm with Captain NJ on this. I'd rather pick my own investments. I don't think this is realistic for the general public unless there are some serious restrictions on withdrawals before retirement age. And before you retort, I already know you how you probably feel about the government telling you what to do with your own money. But access to select your own investments with a restriction on withdrawals before a certain age would be , I think, a happy compromise.
I understand this too.If the goverment is restricting my access to my money then how would it be privatised?Unless the goverment guarantees certain aspects of the plain I can't see it working.I do agree with you and what you say about John Q. Public and his money.
I understand this too.If the goverment is restricting my access to my money then how would it be privatised?Unless the goverment guarantees certain aspects of the plain I can't see it working.I do agree with you and what you say about John Q. Public and his money.
you can restrict access to the money while still giving the person ownership of an account. that is currently done with 401ks/IRAs. instead of a mythical account, you have your own 401k type of account with whatever evil limits government wishes to place on it.
the poor performance of the individual investor is a fact. its also a fact that a lot of people make bad decisions with their retirement money. you can minimize the risk with additional restrictions on what people can do with the money. the reason why people dont have their own accounts is because the government uses that money for the government's benefit. they also need the ability to change the rules depending on the situation they are in. it really isnt to benefit the individual.
i dont see the point in having social security anymore. it was supposed to generate revenue for the government but now it doesnt. just scrap it.
i dont see the point in having social security anymore. it was supposed to generate revenue for the government but now it doesnt. just scrap it.
See ,now this is where we disagree .That was never the purpose or the intention but that has become what the goverment use's it for.Why not make the goverment "accountable" for what they have taken from it ,then it wouldn't be a burden on anyone .Scrap it ,no.While SS was never intended to support someone solely in retirement it was meant to help people and that is what it does.Wall St. has screwed so many retirements just with the dishonest Bankers and traders .Yes I know there are other investments but the money all ends up in one place. They have proven the Wall St. minions can't be trusted.
See ,now this is where we disagree .That was never the purpose or the intention but that has become what the goverment use's it for.Why not make the goverment "accountable" for what they have taken from it ,then it wouldn't be a burden on anyone .Scrap it ,no.While SS was never intended to support someone solely in retirement it was meant to help people and that is what it does.Wall St. has screwed so many retirements just with the dishonest Bankers and traders .Yes I know there are other investments but the money all ends up in one place. They have proven the Wall St. minions can't be trusted.
you dont need social security to help poor seniors. you just put them on welfare programs. much like a 40 hour work week, there is always an ulterior motive when politicians do something. you may believe it was to help people but it was really the revenue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
