Currently, social security is publicly funded via worker contributions and is managed by the federal government. Do you believe a portion of all contributions should be privatized? Should we allow workers to manage a portion of their own contributions?
2006-12-01 10:47:36 · 10 answers · asked by Eugene 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Can't be worse than the current plan to go bankrupt.
I see problems with the bankruptcy plan...having paid in all my life...
2006-12-01 10:49:30 · answer #1 · answered by DAR 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I work for Social Security. There is no plan for privitization. That was dingbat Bush's idea. If Social Security did go private, that's what would bankrupt it. It would be a bad idea for people to be able to take their money out early, because then they would have nothing to support themselves with once they retire or if they were to become disabled before retirement age. It is alot more complicated than you realize. But, having said that, it would be a good idea if people were able to invest their Social Security into things like IRA's. That way they would earn interest on it.
2006-12-01 19:02:20 · answer #2 · answered by noway 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Privatization is the ONLY way to save Social Security.
Just a portion.
But it CAN NOT be cashed in by the worker until retirement.
When the Democrats sabotaged Bush on Privatization, they destroyed Social Security for the young workers of today.
That's what the Democrats wanted to do.
2006-12-01 19:05:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I lean towards it for myself ( I invested in 401k from inception and now live off the proceeds) but I will not vote for it because:
1. Most people are not good money managers. Unlike the current SS system which is a guarantee, they can lose 100% of their funds depending on how privatization is implemented.
2. It's another opportunity for Bush's private money maker Haliburton.
3. Once that door is open, Pandora's evils will come flying out.
2006-12-01 19:00:52 · answer #4 · answered by Succubus 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You'll get a better answer if you ask the question correctly.
The question is: Do you want a portion of your social security, a GUARANTEED retirement and disability system, turned over to a bunch of Wall Street hot shots?
2006-12-01 18:51:51 · answer #5 · answered by bettysdad 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Social Security is another tax. If you make too much you dont get a GARANTEED benefit. Theres no garantee that fairly young people will get anything when it comes time to retire. WHEN WILL ALL YOU DEMS STOP BLAMING BUSH FOR ALL THE WORLDS PROBLEMS. He didnt screw up social security. Last I knew democrats and republicans had people in congress and the house. They all get a cushy pension. IF YOU MANAGE TO WORK YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MANAGE YOUR MONEY.
2006-12-01 23:49:20 · answer #6 · answered by friendly advice from maine 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Social Security only takes part of your paycheck. The rest is already "privatized." Feel free to invest some or all of that for your retirement if you wish.
2006-12-01 18:56:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Should we ALLOW workers to be in charge of their own money? Of course! Social Security should be optional. You should be able to choose whether or not to put in (and take out) from Social Security, or to take care of your retirement fund on your own.
The government thinks that the American people are not capable of taking care of their own money - and some people are not. But for those who think they are, they should have the right to invest as they please.
2006-12-01 18:51:31 · answer #8 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If our social security plan is so "good". then please tell me why the federal employees have their own plan that isn't included with our?
2006-12-01 19:01:32 · answer #9 · answered by patricia p 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No
2006-12-01 21:00:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋