Social Security: Are We OWED a Retirement?

from JoeUser Forums

In response to the flap over social security and privatization, I am inclined to ask if a retirement is something we should take for granted, or if it is something that belongs only to those who scrimp and save to provide their own retirement.

In answering this question, I think we first need to consider the Social Security system's setup. Begun under FDR, the system works in such a way that those who are recipients of the system receive their benefits based on the earnings of the current working generation. While this worked when the program was begun, at this point in time, many American workers have worked and paid into the system for many years, and social security benefits would simply be a payout of what they've already contributed. In short, they have worked for a promise that some politicians seem bent to remove from them.

The privatization argument has met with a good deal of criticism from the liberal camp, and with seemingly just cause. If the system is privatized, the argument goes, then the solvency of the program will be dependent upon the performance of private investment funds and not of the solvency of the US Government. But such a program makes sense to others on many levels. But to most conservatives, the idea has merits in that individuals could potentially have greater control over their retirement funds.

As the member of a generation that will most likely need to be older than 70 IF social security is still around, I'm inclined to dismiss the federal program altogether and work to provide for my own retirement. And I know many who feel as I do (mathematically speaking, I don't stand a very good chance of living far past 70, and would like to enjoy SOME retirement years). And so, to me, all I see is 20 years and counting of wasted contributions to a failed retirement system that have only served to decrease my earnings potential. For this reason among others I'm inclined to advocate for privatization, to have control over even a portion of my contributions to the pool.

Whatever the proposed solution, the other side is likely to debate it till the cows come home. And neither is likely to win. But, to answer the title question as to whether we are OWED a retirement, I would say, the answer is a resounding YES!, assuming we have paid into it as we should over the years. It is a fund into which we invested in trust and from which we should receive; otherwise, the social security withholdings should be nullified entirely and the system shut down altogether.

Respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish

politics
6,432 views 28 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Whatever the proposed solution, the other side is likely to debate it till the cows come home. And neither is likely to win. But, to answer the title question as to whether we are OWED a retirement, I would say, the answer is a resounding YES!, assuming we have paid into it as we should over the years. It is a fund into which we invested in trust and from which we should receive; otherwise, the social security withholdings should be nullified entirely and the system shut down altogether.
Respectfully submitted,
Gideon MacLeish


Good to a point. But what about those people already on it? Or those too disabled to work?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

My proposal, if the system was done away with entirely, would be a "phase out" for the reasons you suggest.

As for the disabled, I have very mixed feelings on that. I know many recipients for whom the aid is a need, but, sadly, I know just about as many that are on SSI because they found a doctor that would sign anyone off.

DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #2 By: Gideon MacLeish - 1/6/2005 3:12:48 PM
My proposal, if the system was done away with entirely, would be a "phase out" for the reasons you suggest.
As for the disabled, I have very mixed feelings on that. I know many recipients for whom the aid is a need, but, sadly, I know just about as many that are on SSI because they found a doctor that would sign anyone off.


Phasing out would be a good thing I think. As to the other.....I think a re-evaluation would be in order. And I don't know how those that you are refering to made it in the first place. As someone who recieves SSI (multiple sclerosis) I had to pass an exam by the SS administrations doctor *before* I was awarded SSI.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know how they made it either. It seems to me there's some fraud somewhere in the system.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
i agree i paid it so its there if not why not its not my problem it is there problem because they mess with it in the first place
if what you say is true about 1 billion being broke down to 3 dollars a person in U.S. then 30 to 40 dollars deducted a wk per person in U.S. averagely then there should be plenty for all who paid and no need for percentage it is yours seems like a american belief so why is there a problem if there is then give us back our money and end of problem.
wmsco
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
i agree i paid it so its there if not why not its not my problem it is there problem because they mess with it in the first place
if what you say is true about 1 billion being broke down to 3 dollars a person in U.S. then 30 to 40 dollars deducted a wk per person in U.S. averagely then there should be plenty for all who paid and no need for percentage it is yours seems like a american belief so why is there a problem if there is then give us back our money and end of problem.
wmsco
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

A couple of issues.  First, the privatization that is being proposed was proposed by a Liberal Democrat, named Pat Moynihan.  Second, the privatization being proposed would in no way have the retirement system dependant upon the market, only those people opting to divert SOME of their funds to it.  Those not opting, and for the part not diverted would still be in  the ponzi scheme.

Finally, I am willing to renounce any claims on SS upon my retirement IF:  Every penny from today on that would have gone into the fund on my behalf, i get to invest for myself instead.  This offer only good for another 2 years.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Finally, I am willing to renounce any claims on SS upon my retirement IF: Every penny from today on that would have gone into the fund on my behalf, i get to invest for myself instead. This offer only good for another 2 years.

Dr. Guy,

Excellent point. I think a system of credit for private IRA contributions weighed against one's SS liability MIGHT be part of the answer. It's certainly worth exploring.

Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
In answering this question, I think we first need to consider the Social Security system's setup. Begun under FDR, the system works in such a way that those who are recipients of the system receive their benefits based on the earnings of the current working generation. While this worked when the program was begun, at this point in time, many American workers have worked and paid into the system for many years, and social security benefits would simply be a payout of what they've already contributed. In short, they have worked for a promise that some politicians seem bent to remove from them.


Yup, it's been documented many times along the way, but Social Security was one of the biggest pyramid schemes ever.

If it had not been an government creation, it would have been outlawed as fraud and shutdown before it ever was permitted to go as long as it has.

Unfortunately everyone was forced to participate, and as more and more people were in the system, more and more private businesses left the responsibility to Government rather than to themselves.

It's a badly broken system, but hopefully one which will be fixed by reform that is now being pushed by Pres. G.W. Bush.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
One of the things that needs to be done to social security, and I know this is not right, but it is going to be a major crisis if we can not control it, is to essentially make rich people inelligible for social security. One way to do this would be something like, 50% of all (non social security) income up to $100,000 will be taxed if you choose to accept social security, and 75% of (non social security) income over %100,000 would be taxed if you choose to accept social security
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #10 By: sandy2 - 1/7/2005 10:39:33 PM
One of the things that needs to be done to social security, and I know this is not right, but it is going to be a major crisis if we can not control it, is to essentially make rich people inelligible for social security


How can you make someone inelligible for something that they are helping to pay for?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
How can you make someone inelligible for something that they are helping to pay for?


Very easily. Think about it, it happens all the time. I am not elligible for Welfare. As a Business owner, I pay into unemployment yet I am not elligible for that either. I am not elligible for the federal governments college loans, I am not elligible for disability, I am not elligable for many things which are paid for by taxes. Edit Oh, also, the plan I outlined wouldn't make anyone inelligible for Social Security, it would just provide an incentive to not take it.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #12 By: sandy2 - 1/8/2005 3:03:43 PM
How can you make someone inelligible for something that they are helping to pay for?


Very easily. Think about it, it happens all the time. I am not elligible for Welfare. As a Business owner, I pay into unemployment yet I am not elligible for that either. I am not elligible for the federal governments college loans, I am not elligible for disability, I am not elligable for many things which are paid for by taxes. Edit Oh, also, the plan I outlined wouldn't make anyone inelligible for Social Security, it would just provide an incentive to not take it.


Okay, that makes sense to a broad point. The reason your not eligible for unemployment is because your not paying in for you, your paying in for your employees..
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, we're not owed a retirement. People used to work until they dropped dead. Sometimes literally. it's nice to have it to fall back on, though. I myself am planning to work until I can;t work anymore, because I by the time I get there, it won't be around.

Seems to me that the governement investing money for your retirement, though, is a little more concrete a solution than the hypothetical "lock box" they came up with a few years back.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
those of you who have retired or invalid parents are already benefitting from their social security coverage.  if youre in that situation, i bet youre pretty glad they werent permitted to invest any of their withholdings in enron.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

the hypothetical "lock box"


once the money that shoulda been locked away is gone into someone else's pocket, you may change your mind about that too.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
One of the things being considered, though, is investment in something like a 401K plan, or something similar. That wouldn't be a bad thing, as long as it could be guaranteed that they would never be tapped into.
Not at all sure I like the idea of investing my retirement in the stock market, though. I might as well invest it in the lottery; it's only a little less reliable.

I admit to not having too much knowledge about this subject, though, just things I've heard in passing on the news.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
one of the things thats being totally overlooked here is the failure of companies to actually pay out the retirement benefits they promised our parents.  what makes you so sure, they wont default on your investments if the economy isnt as rosy as they projected 30-40 years earlier?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
one of the things thats being totally overlooked here is the failure of companies to actually pay out the retirement benefits they promised our parents. what makes you so sure, they wont default on your investments if the economy isnt as rosy as they projected 30-40 years earlier?


One of the best examples of this I can think of is the time a nurse at the hospital I used to work at decided she wanted to retire. She went down to Human Resources to talk about it with whoever she had to see there.
She'd worked there for 32 years, but lo and behold, when HR got her file, they said they only had her as having worked there for 25 years. 7 years is a lot of pension.
The next day, the nurse came into the HR office with a file case full of paystubs from the hospital dating back to the mid-1970s......when she'd started. Within 2 days, HR had miraculously found the rest of her paperwork.

I'd be willing to trust the 401K thing, though, if laws could be passed to guarantee me my money when the time comes. I don't know....like I said, I'm not too up on this subject.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Within 2 days, HR had miraculously found the rest of her paperwork


glad to hear bout that.  too cool!
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
First lets take a look at what would happen if the government were to invest money:

corruptness in the government would cause certain companies to have money invested in them. This would cause their stock prices to fall. Now, say the federal government starts selling stocks. BOOM. Collapse. By the time all the stocks are sold the stock is worthless. Also, the governemnt would have influence in the commercial world. This isnt supposed to happen, hence a capitalistic society. The reason we need things like social security is a) some people are poor and it is our responsibility to take care of them and b) people don't always know whats best for them and thats where the government comes in.

The problem with Bush's plan is that it costs more to implement and fix than it would be to raise taxes to cover the deficit of social security. What we need is a total overhall that includes raising the retirment age, increasing the tax and decreasing the benefits for those who truly don't need them.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

kingbee,

But you, as many, are trusting in the GOVERNMENT to pay out retirement benefits. My contention is the government has violated its trust consistently enough as to not be worthy of my trust. If you have a problem with this assertion, I have a few American Indian friends who you might want to address.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
<
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #21 By: sandy2 - 1/11/2005 1:29:55 PM
First lets take a look at what would happen if the government were to invest money:


I could be mistaken but I don't think Uncle Sam does the actual investing. It's more like a 401K where you can pick where it's going.


What we need is a total overhall that includes raising the retirment age, increasing the tax and decreasing the benefits for those who truly don't need them.


I may be wrong on the first part but I will never agree to the second.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I may be wrong on the first part but I will never agree to the second.


Do you feel that rather than raise taxes to cover losses or rather than to overhaul it, we should spent another trillion dollars now and say 30 trillion dollars over the next 50 years of money we don't have (ie bonds), costing more than the amount it would cost to cover the loss in taxes. There is a book I recomend everyone read... but I can't think of the title right now. Let me go find it.