NationStates Jolt Archive

What does everyone think of this? I mean, if Bush doesnt start taxing us how can he pay for this and thats bad. But Ive heard some people say that the current Social Security will go bankrupt by '42. So the question is, what do you think?

You can select more than one, but only if you select one of the top three and four.

Ex. you can select 1,4 2,4 3,4. But you cant select anything different than that...unless you only want to select one.

I believe in the right to chose.

I think that Social Security isn't very social and far from secure. :(

This is my position on it...

Why doesnt the Govt. take the funds they get and invest it in these conservative low risk accounts that they trust so much and if the market goes bust then that is the govt.s fault and they still owe us the money we deserve when we retire. If these personal accounts are such a great idea then it shouldnt be a problem for the govt to make the decision for them and cover it if theres a problem. And then what we are owed can still get passed down to our kin if we die or whatever.

That way you don't leave it up to people who have no idea what they are doing.

(*Cr0sSp0sTeD*)

im not american, but regardless of location i wouldn't entrust profit-seeking firms with running welfare. if they're not profit-seeking then what incentive do they have to be efficient that a government run organisation doesn't? they would both still suffer from some form of X-inefficiency.

What does everyone think of this? I mean, if Bush doesnt start taxing us how can he pay for this and thats bad. But Ive heard some people say that the current Social Security will go bankrupt by '42. So the question is, what do you think?

You can select more than one, but only if you select one of the top three and four.

Ex. you can select 1,4 2,4 3,4. But you cant select anything different than that...unless you only want to select one.

I don't think it would necessarily be such a bad idea.

none of the above

They should get rid of pork barrel spending and then cancel out the new surplus with a decrease in payroll taxes. Less money coming in from payroll taxes now means less money that needs to be paid out in Social Security benefits later

http://www.cepr.net/Bytes/social_security_2004.htm
Quote:
The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of Social Security shows the program to be considerably stronger than has been indicated in recent reports by the Social Security trustees. The new analysis finds the program will be able to pay full scheduled benefits until 2053 - nearly fifty years into the future - with no changes whatsoever. This means Social Security is far sounder today than it has been through most of its existence. In the past, shortfalls in every decade from the forties to the eighties required frequent tax increases, with the last series of increases ending in 1990.

Privatization will cost several trillion dollars. When Argentina tried it in the 1990s, it destroyed its economy (http://www.cepr.net/argentina_and_ss_privatization.htm)

How can we trust Bush? In 1978, he said that if Social Security wasn't privatized, it would go bankrupt in 10 years. It is now 27 years after 1978...

It seems that Bush's propaganda is getting effective...
http://afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=PressReleases&PressReleaseID=411

http://www.cepr.net/Bytes/social_security_2004.htm
Quote:
The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of Social Security shows the program to be considerably stronger than has been indicated in recent reports by the Social Security trustees. The new analysis finds the program will be able to pay full scheduled benefits until 2053 - nearly fifty years into the future - with no changes whatsoever. This means Social Security is far sounder today than it has been through most of its existence. In the past, shortfalls in every decade from the forties to the eighties required frequent tax increases, with the last series of increases ending in 1990.

Privatization will cost several trillion dollars. When Argentina tried it in the 1990s, it destroyed its economy (http://www.cepr.net/argentina_and_ss_privatization.htm)

How can we trust Bush? In 1978, he said that if Social Security wasn't privatized, it would go bankrupt in 10 years. It is now 27 years after 1978...

It seems that Bush's propaganda is getting effective...
http://afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=PressReleases&PressReleaseID=411

hmmm very interesting - I'll check yer links out

Option #4

I'm gonna ask this again: how exactly does privatization actually fix social security?

It's quite simple. We have a program whose expenses will exceed it's income. Either we lower the expenses or raise the income. Privatization is no magic trick.

Option 3... pay it off and then do away with it. It's just another tax. I want that money in my pocket so that I can do what I please with it. I earned it, after all.

If I pay $100,000 in social security over my lifetime and get $100,000 back at age 65, I will have lost a ton of money against inflation. I'd rather have that money added into my paycheck so that I can decide how to invest it and make it grow in real value (as opposed to nominal value). Time value of money, folks...

What does everyone think of this? I mean, if Bush doesnt start taxing us how can he pay for this and thats bad. But Ive heard some people say that the current Social Security will go bankrupt by '42. So the question is, what do you think?

You can select more than one, but only if you select one of the top three and four.

Ex. you can select 1,4 2,4 3,4. But you cant select anything different than that...unless you only want to select one.
2050 it will not be bankrupt. Instead it will have reduced benefits aroind 70% instead of 100%.

My Business Professor says that the good idea that can come from Private accounts if Bush does them right is yu get the money whether you are old enough or not:
If you die before you reach old age you get the Private account money (given to your family because your dead).
Normally unless you married you only get half or so.

Sop if he is right than that would be nice. Althought SS wasn't there as a gioft for making it to old age. Its not there for for you just because.

What happens when your social security investments tank because of a recession or Enron style assholery? Do you then starve? Perhaps you subject yourself to proseletyzing christian groups in exchange for some soup kitchen supper under a federally funded "faith based initiative".

I think we need to talk about why SS was even created.

Eh, I think that it should be phased *slowly* out of existance

off the top of my head:

1. i have never expected to see a dime from SS, and therfore am planning my future accordingly.

2. i vote to scrap the whole thing--it was originally intended to supplement retiree's pensions, not solely provide assistance.

3. if the government wouldn't have drained the SS fund over the last 30 years, we wouldn't have anywhere near the problem we have now. once again, it is easy for politicians to throw away other peoples' hard earned cash.

4. a side note: did you know that it is illegal for private citizen's to set up anything resembling the current SS system? it is what is known as a ponzi pyramid scheme and is illegal. it is a system where many on the bottom of the pyramid support a few on the top--think of those chain letters you got as a kid telling you to send a letter/$1/pack of baseball cards to the person on the top of the list--i always got screwed and never got anything (just like when i retire in 45 years).

I think we need to talk about why SS was even created.

why was it created?

because some people in power thought that most americans are helpless fools when it comes to managing money (on the back of the market crash, that almost is a good enough excuse for enacting another piece of socialism) and that the government should do it for them.

I think that some people (and major CEOs) don't really need social security benefits. That might put more money into the system.

I don't think privatization will really solve matters, as the issue is paying for the people who need it right now, not paying for yourself in the future. The reason social security exists is that some people can't pay enough to get the sort of accounts that will support them.

Privatise, and I couldn't resist the Dick Cheney eats puppies.

because some people in power thought that most americans are helpless fools when it comes to managing money
Basically, created by people who think the government can run one's life better than a person his or herself can . . . gotta love logic like that ;)

The United States has had more years without Social Security than with and in my opinion it is a lame horse that is long over due for being put down. Let me have my money now and let it be no one's fault but my own if I retire into poverty. I dont feel entitled to anything save for the freedom to make my own decisions and if I should choose wrong I wont go whining about it to Uncle Sam.

it seems like a very bad idea to me

just ask the people who worked at enron whose 401k went from hundreds of thousands of dollars to merley hundreds.

we have enough of a deficit now, we dont need a bigger one.

why was it created?

because some people in power thought that most americans are helpless fools when it comes to managing money (on the back of the market crash, that almost is a good enough excuse for enacting another piece of socialism) and that the government should do it for them.
It was created because the elderly were becoming a burden on young couples who had to support up to four older parents along with their children.

The way to fix it is not to privatize, but to make people work a few more years before they can collect benefits. People live longer and stay healthier than they did when SS was invented. Taking the above measure would cut the ammount paid out annually, and increase the ammount of money coming in to the system.

Eh, I think that it should be phased *slowly* out of existance

I agree with that statement. Less government means more freedom.

did anyone read the link earlier about Aregentina?



The Role of Social Security Privatization in Argentina's Economic Crisis

By Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot [1]

April 16, 2002


In July of 1994, with the strong support of the World Bank, Argentina partially privatized its Social Security system.[2] In December of last year, Argentina finally removed its currency from its peg with the dollar, and halted payments on its debt, after four years of recession. These moves came in response to a situation that had clearly become untenable. The nation was paying ever higher interest rates to finance a debt that was continually growing, due to the country's extraordinary interest burden.[3] By December it was clear that there was no way out of this vicious circle without both a devaluation of the currency and some reduction of the interest burden. Argentina is currently negotiating with the IMF to allow for a resumption of normal credit relations, but regardless of the outcome of these negotiations, it is generally expected that Argentina will see a further large decline in its GDP.

While the decision to peg its currency to the dollar would have created problems in any case, the decision to privatize Social Security made Argentina's situation more precarious. The reason is simple—Social Security privatization deprived the government of a large amount of tax revenue. Payroll taxes that had gone to the government to support the old pay-as-you-go Social Security system were instead diverted to private accounts. As a result, the government lost an amount of revenue that has been estimated at 1.0 percent of annual GDP (the equivalent of $100 billion a year in the United States) (International Monetary Fund, 1998, p 9).

Argentina's government had to borrow to make up for this lost revenue.[4] Argentina was forced to pay a very high interest rate on its new debt, as a result of a series of external events beginning with the US Federal Reserve's interest rate hikes in February of 1994, and the series of emerging market financial crises (Mexico, East Asia, Russia, Brazil) that followed. Therefore, the borrowing that was needed to finance Social Security privatization came at a very high cost. This cost quickly grew, as higher debt led to higher interest payments. Table 1 shows the impact that Social Security privatization had on Argentina's deficits and debt in the years from 1994 to 2001. These calculations assume that no offsetting adjustments were made to Argentina's budget to compensate for these deficits. As can be seen, the deficits created by the lost Social Security tax revenue and resulting interest payments grew rapidly, so that by 2001 they were nearly equal to 3.0 percent of GDP.

I think they make a good point but so do some of you. Since we are not in a social security crisis (As Bush would have you believe) I think we should hold off doing anything drastic until we come up with a good plan that the majority of people can agree on.

I voted for all. Mwahahaha!

I voted for all. Mwahahaha!


lol so did I

READ:

The reason is simple—Social Security privatization deprived the government of a large amount of tax revenue.

they were doing the same thing that our gov't is doing, spending the funds on other expenses so there was no money there for benefits. it was the huge debt that screwed them, not privitizing SS.

Not Privatizing Social Security: Baby Boomers will raid the system of any money in a manner similar to how a rabid rabbit devours a carrot, leaving me with no money in retirement because payroll taxes sucked me dry of any money I could have saved. Thus, Social Security fails me.

Privatizing Social Security: Baby Boomers will raid the public part of the system of any money in a manner similar to how a rabid rabbit devours a carrot, leaving me with no public money in retirement. Any money I privately invest by teaming up with an investing firm to use my capital to seek profits and split them between the two of us will vanish because the profit motive is not benevolent and the investing firm would rather spite me by losing both of our profits than actually make a good business deal. Money I invest in government-backed bonds will also disappear because money can be classified as either belonging to Social Security or private hands. Since bonds are not Social Security, they therefore must be private hands (and cannot be available for me in retirement for the aforementioned reason). Thus, Social Security fails me.