OhIsee.Then
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,581
- Reaction score
- 277
- Location
- MI and AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Opting out is off the table. SS needs full participation to work the way it is now and in the future.
ricksfolly
Social Security is not broken. Also SS is not a retirement plan, it's insurance against poverty either in old age or if you become incapacitated when your young enough to work. I can't confirm this, but I've heard as much as 30% of current recipient are young enough to work, but can't.
According to the Dept of labor, 75.8 million 18 and over aren't even looking for jobs for a variety of reasons.
Most are probably living with their parents.
ricksfolly
People are unemployed and not paying SS. And, if they are living with their parents they probably aren’t collecting SS. So, please explain what this has to do with SS. thxAccording to the Dept of labor, 75.8 million 18 and over aren't even looking for jobs for a variety of reasons.
Most are probably living with their parents.
ricksfolly
SS was started as a pay as you go program, but it did collect more money than it needed. We spent that money on other things. So, no money is invested. From an investment POV, I look this way: I’ll work for someone else for a couple of hours this week if someone else will work a couple hours for me in the future.
Please, someone tell me where I can disabuse myself of my misunderstanding that SS was originally and is now a pay as you go program, not an investment program.
(I know the ‘surplus’ is used (robbed) to lower taxes, but that is another issue.
Opting out is off the table. SS needs full participation to work the way it is now and in the future.
ricksfolly
SS was started as a pay as you go program, but it did collect more money than it needed. We spent that money on other things. So, no money is invested. From an investment POV, I look this way: I’ll work for someone else for a couple of hours this week if someone else will work a couple hours for me in the future.
Without knowing it, I trust, you have mischaracterized SS. Then you offer options to what it isn’t. There is a name for this, but I forgot what it is.
Efficient, as in little waste in running the program. Secure as having not been lost in the market collapse. The interest at my bank has been terrible as well, and we lost a fair sum of money due to the stock market crash. Higher risk funds do earn more interest but there are risks. What if they spend it instead of saving it? If we have to turn around and support those that have made bad investment choices, what have we gained?
My concern is what if they make bad investment, get swindled, or simply spend the money. What happens then?
I see where you are coming from and there is something to that, but ultimately I see it as a way to prevent having to throw old and disabled people out in the street.
Its not welfare, its a fund we all pay into to assist in our retirement, or if we become disabled.
As the economy improves, so will the rate of return. However, the rate of return is secondary to me to have a secure mechanism to help protect ALL of our old folks and the disabled.
For phattonez and others.
What if they spend it instead of saving it?
They are broke. We’ll need a law to keep them out of the ER’s etc.
What are we, parents of idiots?
Sorry, yes.
People can take care of themselves.
They have proven over and over that they can’t.
We should not force people into making good decisions if their bad decisions only affect themselves.
Yes! YES! But we’ll need some laws that allow that allow us to ship them off somewhere so I won’t have to move to a gated community with a private police force. I’ll be sorry to see you ship my in-laws out, but oh well as long as I don't have to do it.
What if they spend it instead of saving it? What are we, parents of idiots? People can take care of themselves. We need not decide their time preference. If they want to save less and think they can live on it then let them do it. If it wasn't enough, then oh well, they can try to find charity. We should not force people into making good decisions if their bad decisions only affect themselves.
They're adults, they should provide for themselves. In the worst case scenario they can find charity.
Some on this board will claim they received much more in payments than they put in. As any investment SS has gets a pitiful return rate, especially after inflation, this means that inevitably, some people won't get what they put in.
Only affects themselves? 7 out of 10 Americans are now officially poor. Does that help our economy or hurt it? Now you want to make matters worse by throwing more old and disabled people to the street? How is that supposed to help? Not to mention the moral implications.
Wow. Anyway, allowing people to keep this money allows them to invest it themselves which grows the economy and makes us all richer. Furthermore, why do you continue to ignore the work of charity?
Its idiotic to think that everyone is going to invest their money wisely. And SS is not an investment program, it is an insurance program that we have all paid into. Perhaps there are some charities to help with the greed issues you wrote about.
Thankfully it is not an investment then
Its idiotic to think that everyone is going to invest their money wisely. And SS is not an investment program, it is an insurance program that we have all paid into. Perhaps there are some charities to help with the greed issues you wrote about.
Why do you think that private charity can't fill the void?
Because charities didn’t before SS. Take a look at how charities were doing before SS started.
Today’s charities are just barely feeding the few street people we have now.
My guess is that 50% +/- 25% of our ‘adult’ population can’t/won’t invest for retirement. So the numbers of people needing charity would increase to between 1000 to 3000%. The amount of money necessary to keep a street person fed is about one fifth the cost of housing a retired person in permanent housing, i.e. not a tent. So I think charities would need to increase their capacity between 5000 to 15000%.
Why do you think charities would fill the void?
And all the money in SS: is it invested? All that money being in the stock market would be a boon for growth. Are those funds loaned out as investments would be? Or are they just stuffed under the proverbial mattress?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?