| McCain is hawking privatization of Social Security even after GWB lost his fight. Do you think privatizing SS is a good idea? |
|
|
|
Asked 4 years ago
by derlehrer  Mexico |
|
About
Retired from Office of Child Support Enforcement, State of Arkansas. Former teacher of German, English, & French. Learning Spanish!
|
5 Points
|
For an interesting perspective see:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/sour-notes-social-security
Let me save and invest my money for my retirement, before the government can find new and interesting ways to spend it and lose it like they have done so far.
That option is available even with Social Security as it now stands. You can always supplement your retirement by saving and investing. But the way the stock market is looking today, it's a gamble.
And I take that option. I'm saying stop deciding for me want should be done with the other half of "my" so called retirement and let me decide. Let all of us decide. If you want to keep the old system, fine. If you want to be responsible for yourself, fine. It should be our choice individually. Is their a reason that politicians can't let me be responsible for myself? I don't remember electing them to be my mother.
And as for the stock market, if you are truly well diversified there is no ten year period over which you are not going to going to make money at at least the rate of inflation, most likely a good bit more. People see the ups and downs and jump ship, and don't diversify, and try to buy only when the market is doing good. That is what gets them in trouble. When the market goes down, I like that. I just keep buying my normal mix because the market will eventually go back up. I keep my asset mix at set percentage levels which automatically causes me to buy low and sell high.
Like a mutual fund.
Not one mutual fund, but about a half dozen different selective and specificity chosen mutual funds. Over simplifying, one in large US stocks that tracks the S&P 500, one to track small stocks, one each for large and small international stocks, one for bonds, one for value stocks, etc...
Makes sense.
What if you lose your retirement savings somehow? Your accountant skips with it? The stock market crashes. Then, after all the years of not paying in, are you going to turn to the government (or a church, or your already financially strapped grandchildren) (who will be paying the interest on the Iraq war debt) in your old age and say "I need help now," after all the years of not paying in? Or are you going to go live in the subway station?
What if the government skips with it like they are doing with SS now? It is my money to start with let me be responsible for it and I'm responsible for the consequences too. The way it is now, I'm my money is at the mercy of elected politicians deciding if they have enough left to give any back to me or not.
Life has no guaranties either way. That is life.
See my comment below.
See my comment below.
Social Security should exist for those who never have a job that pays well enough to create adequate retirement savings. Those who are well enough off financially benefit very little from Social Security. But I would hate to live in a country that let 80-year-olds live under bridges while society snorts with derision and says: "you should have saved more ..." That was the reason Social Security was introduced in the first place.
That's what I thought it was created for too. Why was it such a great idea for the first half of it's existence and now so many think it is not such a great idea.
I think it's a good idea for the reasons you mentioned. For a lot of people near retirement age it's all they have.
The only way privatization could be a good thing is if two things become true: no branch or agency of the government ever be allowed to "borrow" a penny from Social Security; then, regarding the operating expenses of maintaining the fund, it should be stipulated that the companies running Social Security only be allowed a certain percentage, a set fee that cannot increase. So if it is decided 20% of the annual interest is enough for expenses then it has to stay at 20% for eternity and not increase by 1.5% every ten years just because the owners of the fund get greedy.
20%? Man you are generous! Are you sure you are not an stock broker or politician? I would say more like 0.2% or something.
See my comment below.
See my comment below.
Privatize Social Security? Umm..the number-one way a modern company increases profits, and therefore return on investment, is by lowering labor costs--which it does by things like eliminating benefits or shipping jobs out of the country or into prisons. Seems to not be in my best interest to invest my retirement in losing my and my neighbors' jobs and health care.
See my comment below.
Thank you, Everybody! This question has (so far) not elicited the abusive and insulting comments directed towards others that I have too often seen on other pages. You folks are putting some thought into the question and letting others know your perspective. That is what I think this site is designed to accomplish.
I shall attempt to address several issues that I see, with some of which I agree and with some of which I disagree.
First, let me ask that if you haven't yet read the commentary that I referenced above, please do so:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/sour-notes-social-security
One of the statements in that article is this: "The public saw through it in 2005 and said that the bedrock of our retirement should continue to rest on a platform of shared responsibility, not on a Wall Street gamble in which the house is the only assured winner."
One of the pervading arguments I see for privatization is "my money, my money, my money"! If that is your position, please do some research on the history of Social Security. Really, it is not "my money"! It was never designed to supplement greed, but to help individuals who could not help themselves, and who were otherwise headed for the "poor house." It is well and good that you can supplement your SS if you have a good-paying job and can invest. There are many, many people who don't share that good fortune. Again, there are many, many people who are losing their jobs in today's U.S. economy who will have to cash in their supplemental retirement funds in order to provide the necessities for their families. When this happens, the only backup for their retirement is SS, which will be there when they reach retirement age. If SS is privatized, if people "invest" in the questionable stock market and spend those funds because they have to provide for day-to-day expenses, their "retirement" is short-changed and they will suffer in their old age or rely upon family members for sustenance or upon governmental assistance.
dr1024, you need to think about contingencies when you are investing. What you have today will not necessarily be there tomorrow. Sure, you make the wisest decisions you can, based upon the information you have at hand today. But you can never be certain about tomorrow. With today's economy, it is quite possible that you will be in the unemployment line tomorrow. And -- I might be wrong on this, so bear with me -- to the best of my knowledge the government is only "borrowing" from the SS fund; that money has to be repaid. So, it isn't as if they are "stealing" your retirement funds, which will still be there when you retire. That is no guarantee with mutual funds or stock market.
sillynilly recognizes the reality with the question: "What if you lose your retirement savings somehow?" It happens. Think about ENRON.
dauguy also makes a valid point: The companies that would draw your retirement investments are in it for THEIR bottom line; they don't care about you! If they can sell your retirement out and place the money in the executives' pockets, that's what will happen.
The reason that I have posted this question is to give everyone a chance to think about the variables with objectivity. Personally, I am beyond that point. To bring the matter home, let me inform you that I retired to Mexico, on my Social Security, because I couldn't survive in the United States on what I'm drawing.
As Paul Harvey says (used to say?), "And that is the rest of the story."
[And let me say once again, thank you for not letting this discussion deteriorate into abusive comments!]
Now look at the situation today (01/25/09) and the way Wall Street has proved my point. As I said before: "The companies that would draw your retirement investments ... don't care about you! If they can sell your retirement out and place the money in the executives' pockets, that's what will happen." That's the way it happened; the CEO's have their "golden parachutes, and the investors are left wanting.
After a couple of years, I think that I can safely say: If Social Security had been privatized when GWB wanted it -- there would be a lot of folks today left with nothing in their retirement years! Thank God for Social Security!