Privatizing Social Security

[Luv4Pac4Ever]

Reading Big Mack's thread made me wonder....how many of y'all are for privatizing social security?
It doesn't seem like that bad of an idea to me. According to what I read from a website, social security will be in deficit in 12 years. That's nowhere near the age of retirement for me, so what's gonna be left by the time I'm at the age of retirement? Am I gonna have to work til I die just to be able to survive? Probably so if something isn't done to reform the state social security is currently in. It would really be nice to be able to retire someday but I can't see that happening if something isn't done. I still have 30+ years before I get to that age, but it would still be nice to be able to retire when that time comes.
This website I found answers some questions that have been of concern about privatization.
http://www.socialsecurity.org/reformandyou/faqs.html#1

Using the calculator on that website, here is what I'll be looking at by the time I'm old enough to retire:

Current Social Security Program Estimates
Your Normal Retirement Age (NRA) 67 years, 0 months
Estimated Annual Benefit $10,958

Estimates under Cato's
Individual Account Reform Plan
Recognition Bond $15,812
Individual Account Value at NRA $156,920
Maximum Annuity Purchased at NRA $11,362


$10,958? You can't even live off of that now, imagine what it'll be like trying to live off of that in 30 years.

 

[Trump Tite]

its because theres too many people

 

[THA WILD]

I'm for it, because the private accounts are out of the government's hands, and therefore cannot be wasted on pork projects. Besides, it's voluntary. If you want to continue getting Social Security the old-fashioned way, then you are free to do so.

 

[AmerikazMost]

Privatizing social security is a horrible idea.

First, you have to look at the cost of making the transition. It would cost trillions of dollars just to change the system, so the people currently paying payroll taxes (which fund 90% of social security), would have to pay for two programs at once. Then even after the transition is made, administrative costs to maintain the new system would be double that of the current one (expected to raise federal deficit by $5 trillion over 20 years). Where are they going to get this money if Bush doesn't want to raise taxes? And if he's going to have to raise them anyway, why not just do it to fund the current, guaranteed system rather than spend billions on one that may not work?

The plan is also discriminatory. Women rely on this plan more than anyone, making up 60% of the total users. Since they make less than men, their private accounts would be less beneficial to them than the current system. Smaller earnings means smaller accounts which means smaller benefits for the people who need it most. Also, on average, about three-quarters of all retirement income for African Americans is derived from Social Security, 40 percent of whom rely on those benefits to satisfy all their income needs. Without the benefits from the current system, poverty rates would double among them. Furthermore, social security provides more than half of the income for all disabled persons and their families. They can't work, so how can they build their own accounts?

They're also assuming that private insurers will pick up the slack of the benefits lost. It's unlikely, however, that private companies will meet expectations or change at all, and if they did, it would likely be at a point too expensive for the average person.

Then of course there's the market risk. Private accounts are invested into the stock market, and our stock market is anything but thriving. In fact, it's been failing over the past 5 years. One bad investment could lead to financial ruin. In the United Kingdom, misleading advertising leads to bad investment decisions that have lead to this such ruin. Can we afford to allow the American public to gamble on their future?

They also promise unprobable benchmarks in their proposals. One such promise is that retirement income will be guaranteed to be at or above the poverty line. Even at it's best, Social Security was not guaranteed more than 85% of the poverty line. Again, where would we get the money to pay for this?



Facts under Bush's plan:

-the average worker who lives 20 years beyond retirement will see a $152,000 cut in guaranteed benefits whether or not he or she chooses to have a private account

-retirement will be less secure because guaranteed benefits will be cut by 40 percent or more for workers who put in a full career under the new system

-today's younger workers will see cuts between 26 percent and 45 percent

-the average retiree worker retiring this year with full benefits would get $515 a month instead of $1,278 per month






Even in 2042, when the current system is supposed to be "drained," they'll be able to pay 73% of the current benefits without any changes. It's going to cost us money to keep it up either way. If Bush hadn't cut all of Clinton's taxes on the wealthiest of Americans, we would still have a surplus to take from for the program. Would it be the solution? No, but it sure would've helped.

 

[PuffnScruff]

i think that privatizing social security is a good idea. there area cities in america that already and have been for years, offering their workers the private accounts or to pay into social security. its very popular in a town in texas. i think it was nightline that did a segment on it a few months back when the president first announced his plan.

everyone that they interviewed loved the private accounts much more than the traditional way of paying into social security. they all said they would see more money in the long run. and to counter what amerikasmost said the majority of the people interviewed in this segment were women and there was no difference between how much the men received over the women.

 

[bigmack]

you cant really count on this stuff. Like luv4pac4ever was saying, 10 grand, whats 10 grand gonna do?i spend 10 grand a month just on essential things. imagine just getting 10 grand a year. so you got like what, 800 bucks a month when ur an old sick person. you got your bills to pay. you cant work cuz ur health is detiorating. u pay ur bills and buy food,then ur left with nothing. what a good way to live the rest of your life :thumb:

 

[Morris]

I'm for it, because the private accounts are out of the government's hands, and therefore cannot be wasted on pork projects.

Pork projects and the budgetary amount spent on Social Security are completely unrelated.

For this country's annual federal budget, well over half of it is locked in stone, with a minority of it being discretionary money (much of which is also earmarked to certain legislation/groups). In otherwords, for a budget that runs near 3 trillion (I believe), most of the spending of that money is already determined and out of the hands of the President and Congress, including Social Security (for at least the present).