• 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!

Shoud Social Security be Phased Out & Replaced With Private Investments

How About Privatizing Social Security

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 21.3%

  • No

    Votes: 70 74.5%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 4 4.3%
  • Total voters
    94
  • Poll closed .
L

LesGovt

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
863
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Would you be in favor of an investment plan that would be phased in over the next 20 to 50 years, where at the end no money would go to the Federal Government? You could invest in mutual funds or Certificate of Deposits on a weekly basis of 12% of your income with 6% coming from your paycheck and 6% coming from your employer. You could not touch the money under the same basic terms as Social Security.
 
Shoud Social Security be Phased Out & Replaced With Private Investments
Click to expand...

no.

.....
 
LesGovt said:
Would you be in favor of an investment plan that would be phased in over the next 20 to 50 years, where at the end no money would go to the Federal Government? You could invest in mutual funds or Certificate of Deposits on a weekly basis of 12% of your income with 6% coming from your paycheck and 6% coming from your employer. You could not touch the money under the same basic terms as Social Security.
Click to expand...

No.

Because wall street would just connive to take it.

That's what wall street is for.
 
Absolutely.
 
Whatever happened with Obama's MYRA deal?
 
LesGovt said:
Would you be in favor of an investment plan that would be phased in over the next 20 to 50 years, where at the end no money would go to the Federal Government? You could invest in mutual funds or Certificate of Deposits on a weekly basis of 12% of your income with 6% coming from your paycheck and 6% coming from your employer. You could not touch the money under the same basic terms as Social Security.
Click to expand...

No.

First of all, that is giving the government the power to direct the spending of your income (with no guarantee of any return) - which should have made PPACA unconstitutional. Second, how could the government say that you own something that they control? In other words, the government would still be mandating that a private business or the government itself gets X% of your income and obviously that private business would demand a profit and pay taxes.

It also ignores other huge benefits of social security - disability insurance and a never ending (until you die) supply of disability/retirement income (if you, or your surviving spouse, last long enough).

What, exactly, happens to that "you can't touch it" (unless and until the government lets you?) fund when (not if) you die?
 
Last edited:
LesGovt said:
Tell me more.
Click to expand...

I was in federal prison with a bunch of white collar guys.

They admitted that day trading and getting people to invest in wall street was nothing more than a ploy to provide losers because computers had tightened the game so much nobody could get ri h enough fast enough.

They inflate bubbles, harvest "winnings" just before it pops, then rinse and repeat.

There is no reason to believe they won't take all that new money too.
 
Absolutely not.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
No.

First of all, that is giving the government the power to direct the spending of your income (with no guarantee of any return) - which should have made PPACA unconstitutional. Second, how could the government say that you own something that they control? In other words, the government would still be mandating that a private business or the government itself gets X% of your income and obviously that private business would demand a profit and pay taxes.

It also ignores other huge benefits of social security - disability insurance and a never ending (until you die) supply of disability/retirement income (if you, or your surviving spouse, last long enough).

What, exactly, happens to that "you can't touch it" (unless and until the government lets you?) fund when (not if) you die?
Click to expand...

And don’t forget that a deceased children get benefits to age 18, at least, as well.
 
MaggieD said:
And don’t forget that a deceased children get benefits to age 18, at least, as well.
Click to expand...

Another "detail" is where will the funds come from to pay the SS benefits for those not "phased in" for the next 20 to 50 years? SS is a pay as you go system where current workers fund current retirees (and the disabled). When those SS "contributions" are no longer coming in then, obviously, other tax revenue must (be raised to?) make up the difference.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
No.

First of all, that is giving the government the power to direct the spending of your income (with no guarantee of any return) - which should have made PPACA unconstitutional. Second, how could the government say that you own something that they control? In other words, the government would still be mandating that a private business or the government itself gets X% of your income and obviously that private business would demand a profit and pay taxes.

It also ignores other huge benefits of social security - disability insurance and a never ending (until you die) supply of disability/retirement income (if you, or your surviving spouse, last long enough).

What, exactly, happens to that "you can't touch it" (unless and until the government lets you?) fund when (not if) you die?
Click to expand...

The plan I laid out gives nothing to the Federal Government. The funds would be in your name and they belong to you. When you die, it goes to whomever you designate. As for the other programs, transfer them to the states and let them tax and manage them. Personally, I would have no problem not telling people when they could or could not take out money. They would just need to understand the consequences if they decide to remove the funds.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Another "detail" is where will the funds come from to pay the SS benefits for those not "phased in" for the next 20 to 50 years? SS is a pay as you go system where current workers fund current retirees (and the disabled). When those SS "contributions" are no longer coming in then, obviously, other tax revenue must (be raised to?) make up the difference.
Click to expand...

Good question. Current people would maintain 100% and that might be true for a period of time, for example those 57 and older. If under 57, the payout from Social Security would decrease and the amount of private funds would increase. Money that goes into Social Security are not "contributions," they are taxes. Money would still be going into Social Security for years to come until those taking out of Social Security have died. That amount would become less year by year.
 
What if...? said:
I was in federal prison with a bunch of white collar guys.

They admitted that day trading and getting people to invest in wall street was nothing more than a ploy to provide losers because computers had tightened the game so much nobody could get ri h enough fast enough.

They inflate bubbles, harvest "winnings" just before it pops, then rinse and repeat.

There is no reason to believe they won't take all that new money too.
Click to expand...

This is very interesting. Maybe you shouldn't run around with crooks and/or liars.

I began investing in February of 1992. I never lost a penny on my investments. Not one. Of course, I did not do day trading and I did not invest in Wall Street. All I did was invest in mutual funds and let dollar cost averaging take care of the rest. Life has been wonderful ever since and now I am happily retired. You really ought to try it.
 
LesGovt said:
Would you be in favor of an investment plan that would be phased in over the next 20 to 50 years, where at the end no money would go to the Federal Government? You could invest in mutual funds or Certificate of Deposits on a weekly basis of 12% of your income with 6% coming from your paycheck and 6% coming from your employer. You could not touch the money under the same basic terms as Social Security.
Click to expand...

No, because most people would have no idea what they were doing and would need to hire an investment firm. So two words: Goldman Sachs. That firm literally set their own clients up for failure by loading their portfolios with toxic assets and hedging against them. Wall Street has no scruples and Congress has no stones to reign them in. This, of course, aside from the fact that they could lose it all tomorrow if some guy farts in the Middle East. Privatizing social security was, is, and always will be a terrible idea unless the Federal Government insures against all losses and at that point you might as well just keep it the way it is.
 
Last edited:
LesGovt said:
The plan I laid out gives nothing to the Federal Government. The funds would be in your name and they belong to you. When you die, it goes to whomever you designate. As for the other programs, transfer them to the states and let them tax and manage them. Personally, I would have no problem not telling people when they could or could not take out money. They would just need to understand the consequences if they decide to remove the funds.
Click to expand...

If this is all voluntary, except for the mandated employer fund matching (which is a wash for them), then why do it at all? What it does is simply remove funding to support for those not "phased out" of SS (a massive federal revenue loss) and then trusts folks to save/invest for their retirement - which was almost (although there was no employer fund matching mandated) the same as before SS was initiated. I guess that you also just assumed that the states will provide disability insurance.
 
Napoleon said:
No, because most people would have no idea what they were doing and would need to hire an investment firm. So two words: Goldman Sachs. That firm literally set their own clients up for failure by loading their portfolios with toxic assets and hedging against them. Wall Street has no scruples and Congress has no stones to reign them in. This, of course, aside from the fact that they could lose it all tomorrow if some guy farts in the Middle East. Privatizing social security was, is, and always will be a terrible idea unless the Federal Government insures against all loses and at that point you might as well just keep it the way it is.
Click to expand...

I restate what I did just a few minutes ago. I began investing in February 1992. I never used an investment firm; I invested with mutual funds companies, i.e. Fidelity or Vanguard. From 1992 to today, I have never lost a penny.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If this is all voluntary, except for the mandated employer fund matching (which is a wash for them), then why do it at all? What it does is simply remove funding to support for those not "phased out" of SS (a massive federal revenue loss) and then trusts folks to save/invest for their retirement - which was almost (although there was no employer fund matching mandated) the same as before SS was initiated. I guess that you also just assumed that the states will provide disability insurance.
Click to expand...

I have not said this was a voluntary program. I said that I personally would have not problem allowing people to take out the funds whenever they wish, so long as they accept the possible consequences. Why do it? The government has robbed the SS funds for years. This ends that. Second, the money is yours. If you are single and die at 61 years of age, your heirs get nothing. Under this program, your heirs get whatever you decide. If you are female who has not worked out of the home, and your husband dies, all too often your SS payment is insufficient. If it was in mutual funds, you would have that money. I have worked at a food bank and many of the people being served are women who have lost their husbands and the SS is no sufficient. It doesn't remove anyone who is phased out as they would have their own money in funds. I have previously stated that the items outside of the retirement program of SS would go to the states.
 
LesGovt said:
I restate what I did just a few minutes ago. I began investing in February 1992. I never used an investment firm; I invested with mutual funds companies, i.e. Fidelity or Vanguard. From 1992 to today, I have never lost a penny.
Click to expand...

To which I would repeat, you are the exception. Not the least of which reasons being that most Americans do not save money in any significant quantities let alone learn how to effectively manage investments.
 
Napoleon said:
To which I would repeat, you are the exception. Not the least of which reasons being that most Americans do not save money in any significant quantities let alone learn how to effectively manage investments.
Click to expand...

If I am an exception, there is no need for me to be an exception. The concept is really very simple and easy to learn.
 
LesGovt said:
If I am an exception, there is no need for me to be an exception. The concept is really very simple and easy to learn.
Click to expand...

And yet, the median account balance is only $2,900 for checking and $5,200 for savings. People buy into get rich quick schemes and prosperity gospel because they're too lazy or just can't effectively manage their finances. Not to mention how many people live paycheck to paycheck.
 
Napoleon said:
And yet, the median account balance is only $2,900 for checking and $5,200 for savings. People buy into get rich quick schemes and prosperity gospel because they're too lazy or just can't effectively manage their finances. Not to mention how many people live paycheck to paycheck.
Click to expand...

I made those mistakes and was nearly 47 when I started investing heavily. We might need a bit more education in this country on finances and finance management. For most people reading this thread, it is probably not too late to learn, but they need to be willing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom