Wouldn't it be better if the money taken out of your paycheck goes into YOUR OWN retirement savings which earns interest and compounding rather than into the people who are retiring right now?
Is this a better system?
Has it been attempted or discussed before?
Are there problems with this idea?
2006-08-03 11:56:49 · 11 answers · asked by surfer2966 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes it would.
The problem is how to make the transition from the current system to that. That problem is what brought any reform to a halt.
2006-08-03 12:59:04 · answer #1 · answered by Alan Turing 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The way the system works your contributions never cover the amount of money that you will withdraw if you live to a ripe old age. So that system would not work. We benefit from having everyone contribute and then distributing the money to the wider pool. The other problem is that nobody wants to raise the retirement age - which dates back to the 19th century or before - age 65 is too young when people are living longer- but until that happens the system doesn't work. It wasn't designed to pay your for 20-30 years.
2006-08-03 12:30:16 · answer #2 · answered by QandAGuy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, because the only ones who'd be able to retire in the end are the people who work on making the commissions off the investments, and the corporations who oversee those investments.
Don't fall for this obvious trick. Privatizing social security would be disastrous. It would only serve the corporations that run Wall Street, and the top 10% (including the Bush and Kennedy families). Remember what happened in 1929? Imagine your entire life's savings wiped out by a fluke, or another Enron.
And, no Ethan....again. Has nothing to do with letting the government "take care of us". Social security only provides a "safety net" so that when one retires (not someone as "rich" as you are, obviously...you're too much of a rugged individualist to collect your benefits, aren't you?) there is something (not much, mind you, but something) there to keep one from starving or dying in the gutter. As a conservative, you should be the first that is appalled by the way chimpy's administration has expanded government and has approved the out-of-control spending of the government the past 6 years. As a liberal, I know I am. I'm all for smaller government and resposible spending.... how about we agree to end corporate welfare and close off shore tax loopholes for the wealthy to start!
2006-08-03 12:09:12 · answer #3 · answered by BarronVonUnderbeiht 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There are already IRAs available for just that purpose. Social Security is a safety net in case you become disabled before you are of retirement age or outlive your savings. Social Security was instituted during the depression when the banks failed and the bottom fell out of the stock market. With the instability of the stock market in recent years and the GOP repeating the policies of Hoover, Harding, and Taft can you really be sure that it won't happen again? Companies like Enron, United Airlines, and Delco Remy have been robbing employees personal retirement funds. Personally I'm glad that I have a safety net in addition to my personal savings.
2006-08-03 12:12:54 · answer #4 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bad idea less than 1/3 of people on social security are over 60, The interest rate paid by social security is about 2%. Inflation runs over 4%. To legitimize social security would deprive the Democratic Party of multi- billions of dollars needed to buy the votes of the non-productive people, their core constencuary.
2006-08-03 12:16:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course it would be better. Just look at the historical returns of the stock market versus what SS might return. Of course that would require people to do a little bit of work on their own instead of having the government take care of them. Personal responsibility is dead in the country. God help us.
2006-08-03 12:27:42 · answer #6 · answered by Nuke Lefties 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What? Expect people to think for them selves? Surely you jest, we the pee on's of this country could never be expected to make our own decisions about our money. We need Uncle Sam to take care of us, to feed us, to educate us and to handle our retirement for us. I can't believe you could even suggest such a thing! Next you'll be saying that we should be able to choose which school we put our children in.
2006-08-03 12:07:56 · answer #7 · answered by Ethan M 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
almost any type long term savings plan is better than the SS system but the demorats want to keep control of the poor in the US so they block any changes to the SS system
2006-08-03 12:12:26 · answer #8 · answered by sealss3006 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i agree that our money should be for us. this system sucks they from us to give to people who are retired now. at this rate we are not going to have nothing when we retire it sucks
2006-08-03 12:06:38 · answer #9 · answered by ken o 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Definitely!
Bush has proposed this or a modified variation of this. It seems pretty good.
2006-08-03 14:24:45 · answer #10 · answered by inzaratha 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋