• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should we be able to opt out of SocSec?

Should we be able to opt out of SocSec

  • Yes -- its MY money, why should I NOT have a choice?

    Votes: 15 57.7%

  • No

    Votes: 11 42.3%

  • I dont know.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    26

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Many, states, if not all of them, have retirement systems for their employees, especially their teachers. These employees do not pay into SocSec.

Should we be able to opt out of SocSec and participate in similar (if not the same) plans?
 
Yes. Not only should we be able to opt out of it, but the government shouldn't offer it at all. Yes, the government should continue paying SS to those who have already paid into it...but we're just making the problem worse by continuing to have people pay into it.
 


sound points-if the Constitution were actually taken seriously, this SS nonsense never would have made it past a district court in the 30's
 
TurtleDude said:
sound points-if the Constitution were actually taken seriously, this SS nonsense never would have made it past a district court in the 30's
Click to expand...

Absolutely true.
 
You can "opt-out" now. Just send your SS check back when you get it in the mail.
 
I completely agree. If it is not gone all together we should have an option.
 
The system would fall apart if people who felt that they had the means to not need it, just could opt out of it. Social Security and Medicare are not some Ala Carte benefits buffet that one can simply pick and choose whether or not they want to pay into. By and large, when you pay into Social Security, you are paying for current beneficiaries. Being that virtually all the current beneficiaries spent a lifetime doing the same thing, its a perfectly fair system.

Just the same, if you don't like it, then all you have to do is convince enough of your peers to vote in representatives who would abolish the system. As a society, we collectively decided that we need the Social Security and Medicare systems, so, if you don't like the programs, you need to convince a majority in our society to get rid of them.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The system would fall apart if people who felt that they had the means to not need it, just could opt out of it.
Click to expand...
Why?
You pay in your money, you get your money back.
You getting your money back isnt dependent on me paying in.
 
Goobieman said:
Why?
You pay in your money, you get your money back.
You getting your money back isnt dependent on me paying in.
Click to expand...

I think you must be under the missconception that Social Security is an investment plan similar to a 401k or IRA. It is not. The money for current recipients largely comes from current workers. Thus, if enough people just opted out, the system would quickly go bankrupt.

I realize that you have an ideological objection to Social Security. Thats fine, all you have to do is convince a majority of American Voters, and you can elect people who would abolish the system entirely.
 
If people were allowed to opt out of Social Security we'd create even more of a mess than we already have. I'm quite certain that many would recklessly opt out and then end up on welfare biatching about poverty in their old age and begging for government hand outs. I do think social security however could be revamped. I'm completely open to giving people more control and perhaps allowing them to invest their social security though there are some inherent problems with that as well. But opting out isn't a good solution. Those that would most certainly opt out are those that will probably need money the most in their golden years.
 
I think it's time to get out of the SocSec business. First, cutting benefits. Start by stopping any new applicants from receiving funds. Second, buying out those receiving benefits and have paid into the system. Third, give a timeline for those who have been receiving benefits and letting them know when the benefits will end (10 year max). Fourth, stop payments from those who have been paying into the system. Fifth, reimburse all payments made into the system only to those who are still living (sorry widows).
 

This is why I support allowing people to Opt Out of SocSec only if they currently have a retirement program through thier employment and have been vested in said program for at least 5 years.
 

Sorry widows? I find that outrageous. Why shouldn't widows be entitled to their spouse's social security? Imagine if they spent their whole adult life raising children and caring for their family while their spouse worked. What the hell is wrong with that? And why should they be punished? What if their spouse was able to work longer hours at a higher paying job and thus paying more socsec due to the fact the other spouse was holding down the homefront? I don't get that at all. Seems extremely callous.
 

Sixth, figure out how the country will pay for a $20 trillion accumulated debt to pay for steps 1-5, and seventh, get really dark tint on your windows unless you like the sight of hordes of crones living under freeways and begging at stoplights.
 
Caine said:
This is why I support allowing people to Opt Out of SocSec only if they currently have a retirement program through thier employment and have been vested in said program for at least 5 years.
Click to expand...

What happens when the company decides its pension promises are too expensive, takes a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and leaves their former employees without their pension? This has happened to tens of thousands.
 

Its a ponzi scheme foisted on us by the dems. I find your defense of this nonsense interesting given the quote you trumpet from Barry G
 
Caine said:
This is why I support allowing people to Opt Out of SocSec only if they currently have a retirement program through thier employment and have been vested in said program for at least 5 years.
Click to expand...

Where does the money come from for current recipients?
 
The business is to get it out of it ASAP. This means that those who did not directly pay into the system, do not get the benefits. What if that person just remarried on his/her deathbed, should the widow get all of the benefits then? What if the widow is getting the benefits, remarries and then the widow passes away? Does the widow's widow then get the original's benefits? I think it's a fair line in the sand.

Iriemon said:
Sixth, figure out how the country will pay for a $20 trillion accumulated debt to pay for steps 1-5,
Click to expand...
Accumulated debt has never been tied into SocSec. It's "supposed to be" a seperate fund. Also, and more importantly, it will not cost the country money to cut benefits.

Iriemon said:
and seventh, get really dark tint on your windows unless you like the sight of hordes of crones living under freeways and begging at stoplights.
Click to expand...
No worries, they'll die of malnutrition before too long.
 
TurtleDude said:
Its a ponzi scheme foisted on us by the dems. I find your defense of this nonsense interesting given the quote you trumpet from Barry G
Click to expand...

A ponzi scheme is where people pay in money where a portion is used to pay temporary returns while the rest is stolen. The "Ponzi" aspect of SS is that the $2 trillion we have paid in surplus SS payments to fund the SS trust fund has been stolen to partially pay for the huge debt the government has run up since 1981.
 
TurtleDude said:
Its a ponzi scheme foisted on us by the dems. I find your defense of this nonsense interesting given the quote you trumpet from Barry G
Click to expand...

I did not say that Social Security was a perfect system. I merely said that allowing people to selectively opt out would only end up created far more problems with the system than would have existed otherwise.

If you don't like Social Security, convince enough of your peers to elect people who would abolish it. You seem to have an ideological objection to Social Security. My objection to "opting out" is a pragmatic one. Simply put, its a dumb idea. Social Security is not designed to be some ala carte investment plan, either we have it or we don't.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I did not say that Social Security was a perfect system. I merely said that allowing people to selectively opt out would only end up created far more problems with the system than would have existed otherwise.
Click to expand...
Not for the people that opt out.

I thought Democrats were all about "choice" -- why should there be no right to choose SocSec?
 

I agree there are number of things with the current system that do not make sense, another is why the Warren Buffet's of the world are receiving benefits.

But if there are problems with the current system does not mean the only alternative is to scrap it entirely.

Accumulated debt has never been tied into SocSec. It's "supposed to be" a seperate fund. Also, and more importantly, it will not cost the country money to cut benefits.
Click to expand...

Accumulated debt is very much tied to SS. If the nation did not have accumulated debt, the accumulated SS tax receipts (about $2 trillion) would have been taken to fund the debt, and instead of "worthless" Govt IOUs the trust fund would have real assets.

Also, the amount of the total debt affects the government's ability to pay for future obligations like those of social security. The debt has every growing interest obligations, and limits the ability to borrow in the future when SS will be a net outgo instead of income.

No worries, they'll die of malnutrition before too long.
Click to expand...

I think that is the true Republican plan.
 
Goobieman said:
Not for the people that opt out.

I thought Democrats were all about "choice" -- why should there be no right to choose SocSec?
Click to expand...

You have plenty of choices now. Put money in a 401k or mutual fund or under your mattress if you want. Your choice.

No one ever said there was a choice about paying taxes.
 
Goobieman said:
Not for the people that opt out.

I thought Democrats were all about "choice" -- why should there be no right to choose SocSec?
Click to expand...

Here is the thing, I don't believe that the government should subsidize logging on public land. I don't believe the government should subsidize mining on public land. I don’t believe in giving subsidies to the oil industry. I don’t agree with four hundred dollar toilet seat defense contracts. I don’t agree with billionaires getting farm subsidies. In fact, I think a lot of farm subsides are based on an antiquated economic model. I think that much of NASA ought to be privatized. I think the government ought to stay out of our private lives, deliver the mail, provide for the defense, help build infrastructure, provide a basic safety net, manage public lands, provide market oversight, and provide environmental oversight, and that is about it.

However, I can’t just opt out of paying taxes for programs that I don’t agree with. All I can do is try to convince enough of my peers to elect representatives who would abolish them.
 
True, but it's not a "baby with the bathwater" situation for me. It's the problem that the government's directive shouldn't be contingent on the constitution's preamble which states that we are to "promote the common welfare" in such a socialist way as it directly contradicts one's "liberty to ourselves". The coercion to pay SS has consequently infringed upon that.

The national debt does owe money directly to SS of the approximately one trillion dollars (cite). Those funds should never have been tapped (thusly my use of the term "supposedly" up above.) The government does need to pay those funds back and robbing Peter to pay Paul is what's going to happen.


Well, now there's a cyclical effect that would be circumvented by removing the need to pay out any future obligations of SS by removing its necessity in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…