Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 61

Thread: Privatization of Social Security

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    313

    Privatization of Social Security

    Do you support the Privatization of Social Security?

    http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/soc...vatization.HTM

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    773
    If we privatize Social Security, then how will we pay for the benefits that are to be distributed now?
    --Jim

    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

    Ronald Regan: A man who, sadly, does not remember that he once was President. However, on the bright side, he doesn't remember that Bill Clinton was ever President either.

    If you can't be a part of the solution, don't become another part of the problem.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    70
    Fact, participation in Social Security is VOLUNTARY in he 50 states!
    Fact, FICA taxes are imposed on the income of every individual. They are NOT IMPOSED on the WAGES of every individual (see 26USC 3101 (a) & (b)). [For all income tax acts of Congress, the US Supreme court defined income to be corporate profit]
    Fact, those who work for themselves are not made LIABLE or REQUIRED to pay by law, the "self employment tax".


    As far plans on how to privatize, see CATO.org or LP.org for a plans.

    Finance knowledgeable retirees love the idea of privatizing Social Security. In 2000 I attended one of my CONgressman's town hall meetings held in Sun City Center, Florida (a retirement community) and asked him to support Social Security privatization and outlined CATO's plan. THE RETIREES applauded and supported the idea. I expected to be chased out instead of applauded.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,218
    How do you mean, essentially have medical insurance for loss of job? It would have to depend on the unemployment level, as those unemployed would be unable to afford the insurance that they need to get them money while they search for a job.
    Or something more like the government making people work for the employment benefits they would normally recieve (or in addition to a lower level), building roads and the like- not sure I think this would work without some serious modification as it is going to make it harder for them to find a job (unless unemployment is high and they are unlikely to find one at all) and would be uncompetive toward construction companies that would lead to more unemployment and handing a cheap labour force over to businesses would be a very bad move and a political impossiblity ('the return of slavery' or the treating of US citizens like third world ones).

    Best scheme I would think would be to have social security payments dependant on the attendance or completion (if studying from home because of children or disability) of special courses. Increasing their education will make it easier to get a job and the benefits of an educated population are numerous.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Tastyfish
    How do you mean, essentially have medical insurance for loss of job? It would have to depend on the unemployment level, as those unemployed would be unable to afford the insurance that they need to get them money while they search for a job.
    Or something more like the government making people work for the employment benefits they would normally recieve (or in addition to a lower level), building roads and the like- not sure I think this would work without some serious modification as it is going to make it harder for them to find a job (unless unemployment is high and they are unlikely to find one at all) and would be uncompetive toward construction companies that would lead to more unemployment and handing a cheap labour force over to businesses would be a very bad move and a political impossiblity ('the return of slavery' or the treating of US citizens like third world ones).

    Best scheme I would think would be to have social security payments dependant on the attendance or completion (if studying from home because of children or disability) of special courses. Increasing their education will make it easier to get a job and the benefits of an educated population are numerous.
    I think you are "on the wrong page."

    Social security in America is a retirement fund that is (very badly) administered by the government. For years people have said "I could manage the money better myself" . Now, some folks are suggesting we get the chance to try.

    You might have a little trouble following this one being from England, Tastyfish. I have found that often times people from other countries have a difficult time understanding what a huge, inefficient thing the US government is. WE have law enforcement agencies that can't enforce the law, we spend billions on social programs, but half that money goes just to administer them. We spend billions on education so our high school gradutes can be as smart as a French 8th graders. The goverment screwing things up is almost a cliche in america (along with a politician being honest).

    Personally, I am all for it. IF they don;t privatise social security, I would suggest that people take it upon themselves to set their own saving plan up. I can see the downside to te privitizsation debate, like a market crash wiping out a bunch of peoples retirement. whne we all know that is the job of the CEO's of huge corporations (had to throw in the enron reference).

    Seriously, even if it means having to live on 5-10% less, at least there is some security for when you retire. NASA arguably has the best and brightest folks that the American governmet has to offer. They spent billions of dollars putting the hubble in orbit and didn't think to test it before they shipped it to space. IF these are the brightest in the US Government, do you really want them to have total control over your retirement? I think not. 5% of every paycheck properly invested = big bucks when you retire. Even if you don't know a yen from a shilling, there are financial advisors that can help you out.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    1,910
    Hmmm.. I was playing around with this idea about the private pension funds and I realised that privatising social security could be turned into almost a revolution of sort. What if the labour movement offered an alternative to profit maximizing funds and instead administered funds where the actual economic influence was the key? A highly contested and controversial issue in my country has been "löntagarfonder" (wage earners fund) where it was proposed that the government would purchase shares in all larger corporations, and give the influence to the unions representing the employed. And with time, the ownership and control of the means of production would be put in the hands of "the people".

    If each and every union would organise such a fund for its members with the intention to take control over the different sectors, and members could invest any share of their pension into these funds, the idea of wage earners funds could actually be achieved. However, it would never reach the scope of the proposed governmental wage earners funds as the fund would be "raided" everytime someone retired. But it could still be a large source of influence, shifted from the elite into the hands of the people.

    I`m starting to like privatised social security more and more Of course, this is still merely a socialist wet dream, but if the larger unions could be persuaded, the smaller ones would probably do the same.
    Knowledge is power. Hide it well.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,218
    Seems odd that they would use the same word for two different things in two different countries but yeah looking back over the page I see your right, though it was referring to pensions and 'social security'

    "You might have a little trouble following this one being from England, Tastyfish. I have found that often times people from other countries have a difficult time understanding what a huge, inefficient thing the US government is. WE have law enforcement agencies that can't enforce the law, we spend billions on social programs, but half that money goes just to administer them. We spend billions on education so our high school gradutes can be as smart as a French 8th graders. The goverment screwing things up is almost a cliche in america (along with a politician being honest)."
    hehe, no problem believing this, seems almost universal except with us we still keep voting them back in due to no serious opposition at the moment.

    Our government is thinking of something like this as well, the increase in the average lifespan is being treated very seriously and teh age of retirment and the pension scheme are being looked at (governemnt pensions being phased out).The predicted workers/nonworkers ration for europe is starting to look quite bleak over the next few decades. Will see if I can find any of the european ideas on this matter (where social security is generally a lot higher, France and Germany spend way more than we even do).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    70

    social security is not a pension fund

    Social Security is not a pension fund as there is NO FUND. The monies collected go into the general fund and monies paid out come of the general fund. This fits the classic Ponzi scheme (a.k.a. pyramid scheme) definition.

    In the United States it is best to work for yourself. That way you have no need to play the withholding games nor the filing of the annual confessions-- more commonly referred to as "tax returns".

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Tastyfish
    Seems odd that they would use the same word for two different things in two different countries but yeah looking back over the page I see your right, though it was referring to pensions and 'social security'

    "You might have a little trouble following this one being from England, Tastyfish. I have found that often times people from other countries have a difficult time understanding what a huge, inefficient thing the US government is. WE have law enforcement agencies that can't enforce the law, we spend billions on social programs, but half that money goes just to administer them. We spend billions on education so our high school gradutes can be as smart as a French 8th graders. The goverment screwing things up is almost a cliche in america (along with a politician being honest)."
    hehe, no problem believing this, seems almost universal except with us we still keep voting them back in due to no serious opposition at the moment.

    Our government is thinking of something like this as well, the increase in the average lifespan is being treated very seriously and teh age of retirment and the pension scheme are being looked at (governemnt pensions being phased out).The predicted workers/nonworkers ration for europe is starting to look quite bleak over the next few decades. Will see if I can find any of the european ideas on this matter (where social security is generally a lot higher, France and Germany spend way more than we even do).
    I am certainly glad to hear that America does not have the monopoly on XXXXXX in government. Sometimes, when I see or hear about the newest bit of idiocy our government has instituted, I wonder if maybe a dictatorship wouldn't be better. We wouldn't need anybody special, just any guy named bob would do. At least then you know who the idiot is. As things are right now, the idiocy is spread through so many levels and so many people that it is difficult to pinpoint who is coming up with the really stupifd ideas, and who is just carrying out orders.


    We have the same problem in the US, we keep having to elect the same folks. We have two choices, rich white republicans who are going to sell out the second they hit office, or rich white democrats that are going to sell out the second they hit office. There is no "average guy" option, and there is certainly NOT a "not going to sell out" option.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    7,012
    Quote Originally Posted by bernak
    In the United States it is best to work for yourself. That way you have no need to play the withholding games nor the filing of the annual confessions-- more commonly referred to as "tax returns".
    There are two major problems facing personal investment replacement of government social security retirement:

    The US has the lowest per-capita savings and highest per-capita personal debt of any nation reporting to the IMF. How is this countered when the current administration drives consumer spending to achieve polished GDP numbers for political purposes. Like our corporations and government, we have a current mentality of instant gratification, so what's left to invest?

    Current SS payments will continue, no politician would dream of committing political suicide with the baby boomers, so any worker/employer would be burdened with current and future withholdings, leaving their remaining net income subject to cost of living and saving for retirement. Any amounts directed to retirement funds will lower tax revenues, lower consumer purchases and could eventually crash our fragile service economy.

    A vicious circle few politicians are willing to face.
    These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by georged
    There are two major problems facing personal investment replacement of government social security retirement:

    The US has the lowest per-capita savings and highest per-capita personal debt of any nation reporting to the IMF. How is this countered when the current administration drives consumer spending to achieve polished GDP numbers for political purposes. Like our corporations and government, we have a current mentality of instant gratification, so what's left to invest?

    Current SS payments will continue, no politician would dream of committing political suicide with the baby boomers, so any worker/employer would be burdened with current and future withholdings, leaving their remaining net income subject to cost of living and saving for retirement. Any amounts directed to retirement funds will lower tax revenues, lower consumer purchases and could eventually crash our fragile service economy.

    A vicious circle few politicians are willing to face.
    Our only hope for change is a president in his second term willing enough to do the right thing and correct the inevitable finacial disaster that lies ahead.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Calgary AB Canada
    Posts
    2,592
    Quote Originally Posted by Haulingboat
    Our only hope for change is a president in his second term willing enough to do the right thing and correct the inevitable finacial disaster that lies ahead.
    I agree that something needs to be done, up here too. I also agree that no one is going to do it.

    Problem is, the president still has a responsibility to his party. No president is going to make a move that will prevent his party from holding office for the next 20 years just because he's on the way out.

    Waxy

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by Waxy
    I agree that something needs to be done, up here too. I also agree that no one is going to do it.

    Problem is, the president still has a responsibility to his party. No president is going to make a move that will prevent his party from holding office for the next 20 years just because he's on the way out.

    Waxy
    In a matter of very few years, politicians will have no choice but to address the problem. It will glaring them in the face when hundreds of thousands of retirees what their checks and there is no till from which to pay them.
    I appoligize for nothing but my spelling.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    7,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Haulingboat
    In a matter of very few years, politicians will have no choice but to address the problem. It will glaring them in the face when hundreds of thousands of retirees what their checks and there is no till from which to pay them.
    With our decrease in tax revenues, yet unfunded Medicare prescription program and continued economic decline, that gap is rapidly closing in on us.

    I think whatever administration is in power at the time that crisis becomes inevitable will do a buyout on SS contributions made to that date by those not collecting SS benefits. The buyout will be funded with treasury issues not redeemable until say age 72, effectively prolonging that part of the crisis. Employee and employer SS and Medicare contributions will continue until an 'unspecified date' 'due to the changeover' and the fact that they're now going into the general fund for government operating expenses. Good luck future retirees on mostly fixed income jobs! You're going to need it as we're spending your future now. You'll also be saddled with the interest on that.
    These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. ~Groucho Marx~

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    70
    I suspect that you and I are using different definitions for some terms you used. You also make an assumption of liability/requirement for which I cannot find the apropriate statute. These differences need to be reconciled in order to conduct a meaningful discussion.

    1. What law(s) [statute(s)] REQUIRE or make liable private companies or proprietors for federal withholding or SS payments?

    2. Please, define the term "income" as it applies to all income tax acts of the U.S. Congress.

    3. Please, define "employer" (see 26 USC 3401) as is used for withholding.



    Current SS payments will continue, no politician would dream of committing political suicide with the baby boomers, so any worker/employer would be burdened with current and future withholdings, leaving their remaining net income subject to cost of living and saving for retirement. Any amounts directed to retirement funds will lower tax revenues, lower consumer purchases and could eventually crash our fragile service economy.

    A vicious circle few politicians are willing to face.[/QUOTE]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •