Is there a legit argument for privatization of social security?

@windinhishair I agree, they put it in the general fund and spent it. There isn't anything there but a bunch of IOUs from the politicians who spent it. When Bernie Madoff did that it was called fraud and he went to prison. The federal government has been doing it for decades and they will continue doing it as long as they have their hands in our wallets.

If you look at what the man who set social security up said, it was never supposed to be for everyone, taking a little from those who do well to allow those who never had a pension to be able to retire, the rich guys were never supposed to draw social security but are forced into paying into it.

Regardless of what was supposed to happen, they have mismanaged the funds and pissed them away. People would be much better off investing in a 401, much more financially comfortable in retirement if they had invested rather than social security.

@Roadsterrider The borrowing from the SS fund is egregious. Yes, it would be fraud if you or I did it. Congress now does it routinely.

Harold Ickes was the man who was the mastermind behind the program. If you read his diaries, you'll see exactly what you said, that it wasn't intended to be for everyone, but was a social safety net. It is a social contract with all Americans to pay into it, and payouts should be based on need.

The problem is that most people don't have a 401K or a 403B to contribute too. You and I were fortunate that we could put money away for retirement. Many people don't have that option.

@windinhishair I would disagree, even the lowest wage earners could contribute a few % to a 401. My problem when I was younger was that I didn't have the information. My parents said to save some money but I didn't even consider investing till I was in my 30s. If someone had told me when I was 18 about a retirement plan, I would have started much earlier. Ignorance is no excuse for not planning, on my part or anyone else's. If only I could have seen a 2 or 3 fold increase over SS by investing when I started out. Or, if I could have had an option to invest a portion of social security, it would have been a voluntary choice instead of just letting the government try to control my retirement.

@Roadsterrider Most lower wage earners don't work for companies with a 401K. Two-Thirds of Americans do not contribute to a 401K and will be totally dependent on Social Security for retirement, or will have to work up until they die to make ends meet.

Many people live paycheck to paycheck and can't put money away.

Social Security isn't trying to control your retirement. You are paying into the system so people at retirement age now can take money out. When you get to retirement age, others are paying into the system for your benefit.

@windinhishair And of course the American people are to stupid to prepare for their future, and therefore the government has to do it for them, right?

@sunsporter1649 I don't talk to despicable self-admitted white supremacists.

@windinhishair Why do you talk to democrats then?

@sunsporter1649

Yeah, the Republicans aren’t racist at all!


@sunsporter1649

[image deleted]
[image deleted]
[image deleted]
[image deleted]

@SevIsPamprinYouAlways

One marches, the other mauls. Photographic evidence. Not “fake news”
@sunsporter1649

@windinhishair I don't have any say in the matter, they deduct from my earnings and spend what they collect willy nilly on whatever program they choose to spend it on, then say the social security program will be out of funds if they don't take more or reduce benefits. Fraud and extortion, that seems to be what is going on with social security.

According to the US Census Bureau, 79% of workers in the US have an option to contribute to a 401, only about 32% choose to invest in a retirement account. But even those who don't have an employer who sponsors a retirement plan can start one on their own, some are government plans even.

When the government is pulling 7% for social security and 15% for income tax and then you get whacked 6 to 10% on every dollar you spend, it is difficult to save. Then add 20 cents on every gallon of gas bought. Social security can't stay the way it is, if I was a younger person, there is no way I would be happy paying into social security. My 401 is giving me a return double that of social security with less invested and only half the time. Quit pulling Social security from peoples earnings and instead, if they choose, put that into a 401. Nobody wants to save when they are young, too much fun stuff to spend money on, just like most young people didn't want to be forced to purchase health insurance. They don't have any problems, it is easier to take a chance and hope something catastrophic doesn't happen. But if educated about saving and retirement, it may be a different story.

@Roadsterrider You can't eliminate Social Security without having half the population ending up at retirement age with absolutely nothing. Do you just let those people die or have them keep working until death?

Same problem with health insurance. If people don't have insurance and they have a major medical issue, they go bankrupt. That raises the costs for everyone else and ruins the life of the person going bankrupt.

If you don't want to pay for the benefit of others in society, and have them pay for your benefit, you'd better stay in one place or know how to build your own roads, treat your own water, deal with your own wastewater, do your own snow removal, get rid of your own garbage, and do many other things you take for granted. Like it or not, you live in a society that is interconnected, and you benefit from infrastructure that your tax dollars pay for.

@windinhishair You are assuming that I take things for granted, I can tell you that it is absolutely not the way I think. I don't have any desire to cut social security off, I just think that the way that the government has mismanaged it is criminal. Change in the system is going to be painful, but it is broken and needs fixed. If you are okay maintaining it the way it is, does that mean I would be correct in assuming that you don't care how the government wastes money that should be returned to the citizenry as promised? Probably not, but defending the system "as is" leads to that conclusion. I can pay 15% into the government for a pittance in return or part of that could be invested in something that would allow the greater return. I will repeat the numbers again, 40 years at 15% for $1700 or 12% at 20 years for $3300 a month. Our system is broken, it needs fixed. Fixing it will be painful for some. There isn't a good way for the government to support every human being on the planet.

@Roadsterrider If you persist in injecting logic into your discussions the democrats will do their darndest to destroy you and your family. Logic is not a strong suit with them

@sunsporter1649 I will discuss anything with anyone as long as they don't resort to name calling or other childish BS. Conversations about the issue is the only way to educate either side. I have an opinion founded on my experience, there is always more than one way to accomplish something. I learn something from every conversation even if it is something that reinforces my own belief.

@Roadsterrider I never said that Social Security should remain as it is. In fact, I believe it needs an overhaul to ensure that it continues to function as a social safety net for those that need it. In particular, it needs two major fixes: a means test for being able to receive it, and eliminating the ceiling on the income on which SS is paid. Those two changes will make it solvent long into the future, and return it to its original purpose.

Have you given any thought to what your numbers would be if you retired in 2009 when the market was at 6600? Try reducing your $3300 by a factor of 4. Think you could live comfortably with $825 a month?

It might be possible to require SS to invest at least partially in the market, but remember how this works--people receiving payments are being paid by people paying into the system right now. There isn't a pot of money sitting around to be invested.

@windinhishair I agree that wealthy people don't need it, but how to force them to pay for it when they have no access to it is the problem.

As far as stock prices falling, it really isn't a big deal. For example, if I own 100 shares of a stock worth $1 each, I have a value of $100, if the market tanks and the price drops to 1 cent a share, I still have 100 shares, but they are now worth only $10, as soon as the market corrects, the price will come back. In 2008 and 2009, I watched my portfolio drop by about 60%. My wife was in a panic and wanted me to pull it all out and buy bonds. I wouldn't do it and a year later, it was worth 30% more than it was at the initial downturn. Friends that changed things around when the price was low, lost by doing it. On average stocks have made about 8% a year, that factors in recessions and even the great depression. A recession unless very poorly managed in a 1-2 year deal, an honest to God depression, 10 years for the great depression. So, in 2026 when I plan to retire at 60, if there is a recession going on, I will work another 2 years until the recovery is in full swing to retire. Without investing myself I would be working till I was 67 or 70. There is no way to argue that I personally wouldn't be better off having that money invested in something other than social security. Combine that with the fact that our elected officials spend social security on everything but social security and there is the problem. A blip in the market will take a year or so to get over, social security has been abused since its inception and it is going to be painful to some when it is fixed, the alternative is to let it ride till it collapses and then pick up the pieces when everyone involved has been hurt.

@Roadsterrider Social Security can't be invested in the market and subject to extreme fluctuation in their benefits, because many people wouldn't be able to survive in downturns. And if most people are able to opt out of SS, it wouldn't exist, because payments in wouldn't cover the benefits. Yes, you would likely to be able to do better investing your own money, but that is true for you, and not for many people who draw from Social Security, because if they didn't pay in, they wouldn't save that money, and we would be back to the situation that led to its creation in the first place. The better alternative is to fix it now, make it solvent, and carry a positive balance to ensure the ability to pay future benefits. I'd be ok with allowing some of that money to be invested in the market, which could increase the value of the fund.

As far as forcing people to pay for it when they have no access to it, that shouldn't be an issue at all. You already pay for many things that you don't have access to, such as federal highway funds for Interstate 37 from San Antonio to Corpus Christi, or federal funding for the Water Reclamation Facility in Billings, Montana. Paying taxes for the benefit of others is a cornerstone of society. In some areas, you will give more than you take, and in other areas, it will be the opposite.