2006-08-03 15:03:55 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I am 49 years old and would be willing to resign any rights to the social security I have already earned, if I could get out of the program right now
I have worked for as a professional for 25 years and during all that time they took 7.5% of my money, and 7.5% more of my employer's money (which he couldn't then pay to me) for social security
even though I have payed all that money, i would agree right now to take no social security ever, if I could just keep my 7.5% for the few years i plan to work
2006-08-03 15:11:25 · answer #1 · answered by enginerd 6 · 7⤊ 4⤋
I'm sure many would.
1. A small handful of them will actually know what they're doing and make some real money in investments that they can enjoy in retirement, and pass on to heirs.
2. Many will make about what they would had they stayed in SS.
3. And a substantial number (perhaps half, perhaps more) will invest badly, and find themselves with little to show for it at retirement age. (Imagine the Enron tanking on investors happening a few more times.)
The problem is that *everybody* willing to privatize their own SS, believes they will be in Category 1 ... i.e. everybody thinks they are both smart and lucky. But a substantial number will be in category 3. What happens to them? Poor houses? Trailer parks? Family members have to take care of them? Or do the rest of us have to take care of them with social programs (i.e. taxes)?
SS only works if everybody participates and reaps the benefits until death (and spouse's death), but no further. The fact that people lose SS benefits to the system when they die is a *good* thing. Personally, I'm OK with that, in exchange for the security that if my 401K accounts go south (like they were a couple of years ago), my kid won't be responsible for me ... or if my siblings don't invest as well as I do, SS will take care of them and I won't be solely responsible for them.
SS is an *insurance* plan ... always has been ... never a *investment* plan. Trying to mix the two would be a disaster for both.
2006-08-03 22:55:34 · answer #2 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
absolutely. In fact I think that everyone under the age of 40 should be supporting this. When people my age (20-30) get to be that old, we will have to support the baby boomer generation, which will be absurdly expensive for us using the present social security methods.
Also, the money would not be put into high risk stocks, but something safe like mutual funds, which is how most private retirement funds make their money.
2006-08-03 23:13:46 · answer #3 · answered by jhessick 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Privatize is a cute harmless sounding word. Its the language of a pedophile Wall Street lurker who has had a series of wet dreams cashing in and 'Enron'izing the federal accounts of what remains of America's young age working class.
2006-08-03 22:47:41 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO
I don't pay a cahoot of taxes, only to gamble it all on the stock market. I do that anyway by myself. Just because the government can't keep its purse strings tied, I get screwed over. Lovely country I'm living in.
2006-08-03 22:13:18 · answer #5 · answered by mommy_mommy_crappypants 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its a scam social security they extorted money 40 years on the promise if i were disability i would be compensated
2006-08-03 22:13:03 · answer #6 · answered by HEY boo boo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope
2006-08-03 22:06:43 · answer #7 · answered by Phil S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I want my money back, NOW. How anyone could trust the government with their money is beyond me.
2006-08-04 02:09:31 · answer #8 · answered by .45 Peacemaker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a second.
2006-08-03 22:52:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is an excellent question that deserves an excellent answer. I believe that I --ERROR: LOSS OF TEXT: ERROR--
2006-08-03 22:07:27 · answer #10 · answered by eagleboy225 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋