Although Bush's plan is awful, many people in Congress are pushing to allow for a more privatized plan. I also recognize that Bush's plan is one step closer towards privatization, even if his system doesn't work.anomaly said:
-
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.
US vs. World
- Thread starter anomaly
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 1,020
- Reaction score
- 6
- Location
- IN
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Hmmm. I'm not so sure. The stock market is a risky place to put your retirement, expecially considering the particularly fragile state it is in today. Many stocks are overpriced, and when they are lowered, it spells trouble for people owning these stocks.
Pacridge
DP Veteran
anomaly said:
The stock market can be risky, it's certainly more risky than the current system we're using. But if you look at market over any lenth of time it has always increased in value. Over time this has always held true. But that's figuring that your investments are diverse and your managing them with caution. Investors that put all their eggs in one basket (see Enron) can and do take huge risks. This is one of many problems with Bush's plan. First a lot of investors really wouldn't have the skills needed to manage their account. Sure a lot of people would be perfectly able to pick 10 or 20 stocks and have majority of them increase in value and pay dividends. But a percentage of people would lose and some would lose big. That's a percentage of people right now that can't lose.
Another issue with allowing a shift in retirement funding from Social Security to the market is the market isn't free. It cost money to invest your money. Funds that manage stock cost you money. Basically a handling fee. That a fee not currently be charge by Social Security.
I don't see why everyone is so interested in the Stock Market. People should just invest in safe, interest-accumulating accounts. They could earn more on what they have in there, and guarrantee themselves a retirement which they created themselves.
And besides, savings accounts do not cost money to have, so you don't have anything to lose.
And besides, savings accounts do not cost money to have, so you don't have anything to lose.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 1,020
- Reaction score
- 6
- Location
- IN
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Well, Gabo, this IS what the gov't has been saying. They advise us to not just rely on Social Security, but also on saving accounts. But some families are quite tight on money, and not all have money to save. This is why we should keep Social Security, guarunteed money to retire on.
Pacridge, regarding you saying the market always increases in value over time. But stocks now are often overpriced (as Microsoft stock was a few years ago) so if they are brought down to their actual value, people owning them will want to sell sell sell. This obviously does not bode well for you if you have, say, your retirement money (or just a portion of it) in this particular stock. The fact is that whether you get a surplus back on your retirement money depends if the market is up or down when you retire. That is why Bush's plan is too costly, it doesn't make sense, and it will put many of the elderly into poverty.
Pacridge, regarding you saying the market always increases in value over time. But stocks now are often overpriced (as Microsoft stock was a few years ago) so if they are brought down to their actual value, people owning them will want to sell sell sell. This obviously does not bode well for you if you have, say, your retirement money (or just a portion of it) in this particular stock. The fact is that whether you get a surplus back on your retirement money depends if the market is up or down when you retire. That is why Bush's plan is too costly, it doesn't make sense, and it will put many of the elderly into poverty.
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 14,418
- Reaction score
- 9,173
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
anomaly said:
Um... sense when is SS a guarantee? If they go broke - we are hosed. They are not REQUIRED to pay us dime. If it goes broke, se la vi (sp)
anomaly said:
If those families that are tight on money weren't paying so much to the SS system, they could afford to invest in a private account. And like I said before, the money in that account will continue to grow as they become older.
Also, keeping SS is guaranteed failure. It's quite simple to understand that lifespans will continue to increase, while worker-retiree ratio will continue to decrease. Put two and two together and you get a system that just doesn't work.