Originally posted by mtthwNo -- the difference is that with a privatized account, all the money invested would be yours to do with as you see fit. Moreover, upon the passing of the account holder, the remainder could be bequeathed to a spouse, child, sibling or whomever the owner designated. Now, any money that's been collected is just lost. For example, my father worked a lifetime under the current Social Security system and died two days shy of his 64th birthday. Consequently, he never collected a dime and everything that was allegedly collected in his behalf just vanished. Well, actually, it went to pay somebody else's benefits. I shudder to think how much of his money was taken from him -- money that could have been invested and earning interest -- and now, just gone.
Or, you could have the state run it and call it "taxation". Just as equitable.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI'd opt out of Social Security today if they let me. I'd even let them keep 50 percent of the money I have paid in during my 35 years of paying in. Taking that money and what I'd pay in the next 15 years (if I retire at 70), I could invest that on my own and have a heck of alot more money than what I'd get from Social Security.
The elderly in the United States are the wealthiest, most powerful demographic in the country. They've voted themselves so many benefits that when the bill finally comes due, they will forever be known as "the most selfish generation."
The people who are afraid of people opting out of Social Security or any sort of privatization of some of Secial Security are the generation that are collecting from Social Security today. They are afraid their 'cash cow' will kick the bucket, because for most of them, after a few years of collecting payments, they have already gotten out more than they ever put in. They aren't concerned how much debt the country will be in because of this socialist program, they will be dead and laughing at us from beyond the grave.
1 edit
Originally posted by mtthwI could take you on a tour of my home town (Reading UK, not Pa) and point out many households that have second and even third-generation claimants.
"Social security in the UK has resulted in millions of workshy natives"
Absolute rubbish.
Babies mean prizes, and each is another windfall.
In Slough and similar towns throughout the UK, residents could doubtless provide similar tours.
I remember one chap who was leaving employment to return to benefits who tellingly said "Why should I get out of bed for an extra fiver a day?"
Again, here in Reading, we have had a massive influx of Eastern Europeans, predominately Polish, who having now paid their years' NI Stamp, are bringing entire families over to "sponge off our system".
EDIT : Not finger pointing at Poles here...just the observation of increased European population and foreign claimants (I have friends that work with DWP)
Originally posted by pawnhandlerBut they won't be self sufficient they'll be taking money from the government.
Then what about all of those people who were screwed out of their retirement by their companies' mismanagement or outright theft? I also like the idea that my parents have a place to live that isn't my house, and they can be self-sufficient as long as possible.
Originally posted by NullifidianYou hit the nail right on the head.
No, it sounds like nonsense to me when the U.S. government is waging a war that costs a two hundred thousand dollars a minute. And would you kindly explain how you isolate the debt run up due to Social Security as opposed to being due to everything else that appears in a deficit-spending budget?
I would also like to know what the basis is for your pro ...[text shortened]... mpion, would change anything about Social Security spending significantly in thirty-three years.
STOP SOCIAL SECURITY.
1 edit
Originally posted by ArachnarchistSo you're whining about young people in the future having to work until they're seventy before they can retire, and yet you want to eliminate Social Security, which is one of the safety nets for a 'comfortable' retirement (to the extent that one's comfort can be maintained on $200 per month)?
You hit the nail right on the head.
STOP SOCIAL SECURITY.
Consistency isn't your strong suit, is it?
By the way, do you think you could answer my questions above? I wasn't asking them simply to read myself posting to a forum.
As a refresher:
And would you kindly explain how you isolate the debt run up due to Social Security as opposed to being due to everything else that appears in a deficit-spending budget?
I would also like to know what the basis is for your projected figure at 2040.
Since you answered what you'd do about Social Security which would make a significant (not to mention pointless and destructive) difference, I'll count that one answered.
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterNo, the elderly are not the wealthiest demographic in the country. That is the province of heads of households aged 55-64, which is before Social Security kicks in. The median family net worth they have is 181.5 in thousands of dollars. That declines to 176.3 for 65-74 and 75 and over declines even more to 151.4. And since we're talking about a robust statistic like the median, forcing the median down means significant declines in income after retirement age for a large amount of Americans.
The elderly in the United States are the wealthiest, most powerful demographic in the country.
2 edits
Originally posted by Nullifidian$200 per month is a very low estimate, my social security will be about $1400, and I've hardly made a pile of money during my life. My wife has barely worked at all and hers will be over $800/month.
So you're whining about young people in the future having to work until they're seventy before they can retire, and yet you want to eliminate Social Security, which is one of the safety nets for a 'comfortable' retirement (to the extent that one's comfort can be maintained on $200 per month)?
Consistency isn't your strong suit, is it?
By the way, d nt (not to mention pointless and destructive) difference, I'll count that one answered.
Considering the 45 years we've each payed into the system, it's true we would probably be much better off if the money had been put into a better savings plan, in fact we'd probably be gazzilionaires, but it's too late to complain about it now. As far as the whiners that claim they are paying for all the old folks now in the system, where'd they get that idea? We've payed plenty into it all our lives, what's their beef?
Originally posted by ArachnarchistThey paid that money in over the years. It's more like a horrible savings account. In fact, my father is 75 and retired in May after working full-time his entire adult life. My step-mother is in her 80s and just retired this summer as well.
But they won't be self sufficient they'll be taking money from the government.
Originally posted by pawnhandlerYes, it is a horrible savings account. So the kids today shouldn't be complaining, they're NOT paying for the 65+ year olds that are receiving Social Security. The old folks have paid their dues and are getting a pittance for many years of labor.
They paid that money in over the years. It's more like a horrible savings account. In fact, my father is 75 and retired in May after working full-time his entire adult life. My step-mother is in her 80s and just retired this summer as well.
Like my wife and I will be in another 5 years.
I'm 56 and retired from the Army and I don't expect Social Security to take care of my needs. I'm incorporated since I own my own business and with the IRA's, and buying good stocks I should be OK in my Later years. Anybody depending on Uncle Sam to care for their ass in their "Golden" years is a fool.