• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Privatized Social Security

Nickyjo said:
I would gladly accept the horrific, unjust burden of making $10 million or so per year in the US.
Click to expand...

one doesn't accept it but rather earns it with a lifetime of preparation and crueling 80 hour work weeks that would make the leech class cry.
 
James972 said:
SS takes 15% of your lifetime income and gives you back dog food money is you live to collect a penny. In private accounts an average American would retire with estate of 1.4 million. Capitalism made us all rich and then liberals wasted all our money.
Click to expand...

That 1.4 million may not mean much with inflation and assuming the economy is hunky dory and the banks can cover it. Lot of ifs going on there...
 
Jason Warfield said:
That 1.4 million may not mean much with inflation and assuming the economy is hunky dory and the banks can cover it. Lot of ifs going on there...
Click to expand...

actually $1.4 million is a ton of money more than the dog food money you get from SS!!
 
Helix said:
Social Security is not welfare. also, peace.
Click to expand...
Money from the government taken from someone else's paycheck - yeah it kinda is the definition of welfare. :eek:
 
Moonglow said:
That 1.4 million would have hefty 14% handling fee subtracted from the gross amount if in private hands...If there is any funds....
Click to expand...
Not even close.
 
jpn said:
Social Security benefits lift more Americans above the poverty line than any other program. Without Social Security, 22.1 million more Americans would be poor, according to analysis using the March 2018 Current Population Survey. That includes 15 million elderly and 1 million children. Social Security provides the majority of income to most elderly Americans. For about half of seniors, it provides at least 50 percent of their income, and for about 1 in 4 seniors, it provides at least 90 percent of income, across multiple surveys and the recent study that matches survey and administrative data.

Women tend to earn less than men, take more time out of the paid workforce, live longer, accumulate less savings, and receive smaller pensions. Social Security brings 9.1 million elderly women out of poverty, as Table 2 shows.

3% of benefits go to young survivors. Like Paul Ryan.
Click to expand...
CBPP throws a far left spin on everything they report on. Living on SS alone is still poverty.
 
Moonglow said:
That 1.4 million would have hefty 14% handling fee subtracted from the gross amount if in private hands...If there is any funds....
Click to expand...

Vanguard charges about .25% (one quarter of 1%) not 14%. Embarrassing!!
 
James972 said:
More importantly it is a way for libcommies to rip off 15% of your lifetime income and give you back dog food money if you live long enough to collect a penny. Would you rather retire with $1.4 million estate or monthly dog food money?? Republican capitalism made us all rich but soviet schemes stole and wasted all the money.
Click to expand...

That SS "dog food money" now amounts to over $31K/year (increased annually by COLA adjustments) for myself and my girlfriend (combined). You cleverly avoided how you plan to have current workers fund both those now getting SS and some "new and improved" private pension/insurance system.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That SS "dog food money" now amounts to over $31K/year
Click to expand...

average is $14k, like I said, dog food money compared to 15% of your life time income
 
I'm Supposn said:
Privatized Social Security:
It would require at least a generation’s duration, and/or substantial federal expense, to privatize our Social Security retirement system. Since Social Security’s enactment, the practice was current employees and employers paying the current monthly benefits.
Any shortfalls must be replaced with federal loans and/or increased taxes, and/or reduction of benefits. (I‘m strongly opposed to reduction of benefits).

Within a privatized system, there’s certain to be incidences of participants’ poor judgement or misfortune. When an individual reaches retirement age and there’s insufficient wealth accumulated within their account, do we propose providing them with Supplemental Security Income? SSI is a public assistance, (i.e. a government administered charity). Even for a generation of employees with excellent judgement, there are business cycles and financial mishaps that are beyond individuals’ control or foresight.

What’s the difference between public assistance for privatized retirement accounts, or for those playing in casinos? Social Security retirement and survivors benefits substantially reduced poverty among our elderly and employees' surviving families.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...
I favor a system allowing workers to establish private investment accounts paid for by their FICA. I recently saw a comment from Social Security Trustees that said such a program would not be a problem to the current system.

How this would go together is a little hazy. Do we expand the IRA/401k structure? Or maybe still a government run system? What safeguards are there on the range of investments?

I think the scope of time we're talking about, e.g. 35-40 year would eliminate market risk. Long term market gains exceed current "returns"
 
code1211 said:
Over the course of a working life, the benefits accumulate at an amazingly constant rate. The economic cycles are pretty short compared to a normal working life.

In my personal example, the investment experience of a single dollar applied to the amount used by Social Security from my employer and from me in the first year of my employment are impressive.

It would have rolled up to be >$130,000 at the time or retirement. this is just investing in the averages of the DJIA with no exotic gyrations or insider knowledge.

The investment experience of the other 40 plus years would only add to that. The total would have rolled to be a pretty good sum, but the math to figure it out is beyond me.

Let's assume that the each of the other 40 years would accumulate to equal only half of what the first year yielded. That makes the total just shy of about $3 million. the later years were higher income, but shorter investment experience.

Using the standard formula of 5% taken out each year to finance retirement, that would yield about $150,000 per year for me today. SS Payments are significantly below that level.

Also, under a preivatized system, if I died the day before retirement, that "just short of $3 Million" would be distributed to my heirs.

The goals of the Social Security program are noble, but the execution is a wasteful and inefficient system based on poorly conceived notions of short sighted vote grubbers.
Click to expand...

If one isn't able to achieve that type of savings/investment in conjunction with SS, then they will never use their SS taxes to achieve that either.
Since no worker ever receives that SS part of a paycheck, it was never really there's in the 1st place. Can't miss something one never had to begin with.
 
dairyair said:
If one isn't able to achieve that type of savings/investment in conjunction with SS, then they will never use their SS taxes to achieve that either.
Click to expand...

nonsense of course!! the liberals really do steal 15% of your life time income and waste it. If instead it was invested privately it would be worth millions to an average worker. Republican capitalism made us all rich but then stole the money in true soviet fashion.
 
dairyair said:
Since no worker ever receives that SS part of a paycheck, it was never really there's in the 1st place.
Click to expand...

oh it was there for sure, at least until the liberal's stole it and wasted it. Not a soviet level of waste but a liberal level of waste.
 
Bullseye said:
CBPP throws a far left spin on everything they report on. Living on SS alone is still poverty.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But SO much better than living on nothing at all.
 
Bullseye said:
Do two-thirds of Americans even HAVE 401ks?
Click to expand...

There's always IRA's.

But most don't save. SS is a major source of income for most in retirement. Sad but true.
 
dairyair said:
There's always IRA's.

But most don't save. SS is a major source of income for most in retirement. Sad but true.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. Few people plan that far ahead.
 
Bullseye said:
Then what is YOUR definition?
Click to expand...

Social Security is a guaranteed public retirement benefit that we pay into over the course of a career. for most people, it yields a minimal pension. for the minority, it is a safety net if they become disabled.
 
James972 said:
one doesn't accept it but rather earns it with a lifetime of preparation and crueling 80 hour work weeks that would make the leech class cry.
Click to expand...

Really? Give me a ****ing break. Think of the world’s smallest violin. I used to work with farmworkers, bending over in fields to use a short handled hoe so they could be closer to the ground. (Don’t fret, evil liberals eliminated “el cortito,” as it was called.)

Admittedly, they only worked a 54 hour week, but none of them earned, say, the seven million their shorter than 80 hour work week would suggest they were worthy of, despite a lifetime of preparation working as children.

Get out in the real world, Gordon Gecko.
 
Helix said:
Social Security is a guaranteed public retirement benefit that we pay into over the course of a career. for most people, it yields a minimal pension. for the minority, it is a safety net if they become disabled.
Click to expand...
It doesn't "yield" anything. You money goes out the door as soon as it comes in. And the only "guarantee" is that they'll pay you something.
 
Bullseye said:
It doesn't "yield" anything. You money goes out the door as soon as it comes in. And the only "guarantee" is that they'll pay you something.
Click to expand...

The only guarantee is that I'll pay into my minimal public pension. It is probable, however, that after I pay into it for my entire career, some Republican will tell me that paying me my minimal pension is unsustainable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom