i wont say anything to leave the answer floor open
2007-01-02 05:34:54 · 15 answers · asked by I.M. 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No. All that would do is add billions of dollars of artificial value to the stock and bond markets which would again benefit the richest members of this society. But all federal programs should be better managed beginnining now. The answer isn't changing the SSA allotments or contributions system but balancing the entire federal budget, the dificits of which have drained the SS account for decades. But our politicians will do next to nothing, apply a few bandaid fixes and eventually there will be hell to pay.
2007-01-02 05:42:07 · answer #1 · answered by Nightstalker1967 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
NO - our economy has cyclical upturns and downturns. Social security was created by the government to assist the elderly when an economic downturn reduces their savings to nothing via bank failure, investment bankruptcy, corporate fraud, etc.
This country has been through many panics and recessions in which many elderly have lost personal savings.
This safety net is needed exactly as it is and was never intended to be a personal savings and investment tool.
The government should be forced to stop raiding it to prop up their false tax cuts. The boomers have been paying a HUGE surplus for many years that has been taken from social security for general government spending and replaced with worthless promises that we boomers will have to pay all over again.
2007-01-02 05:42:18 · answer #2 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes I believe they should partially privatize it for a myriad of reason. You would get a higher income on your retirement like the people did in Galveston Texas when they opt out of SS in the 1980's they are averaging 2.5 times the return than the typical SS recipient.
You would be able to pass down your retirement investments to your heirs rather than the government keeping it.
The average black male lives to about 63 so in essence he is paying into a system that he will not benefit from.
Keep some of it for the government to run because there are a percentage of Americans that are losers, those that fail to save for anything, those that have a dependence mentality, and unfortunately those thru no fault of their own fall on hard times.
2007-01-02 07:01:17 · answer #3 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, only if the legal citizens gain majority rule & control over everything replacing representative government! Social security is far to low in its pay-out & needs to be increased but certainly not privatized without the whole structure of government being change by its current rule & control thats putting the screws and shortchanging everyone.Privitizing access to money/someones pay very bad idea in this corrupt society we currenly live in!
2007-01-02 05:45:55 · answer #4 · answered by bulabate 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's debatable...as it is set up now, it's basically a government Ponzi scheme. Would be nice to get some kind of interest on the money, but not sure I'd like our politicians to be the one choosing the investments. I don't trust either party to invest it without being swayed by all the lobbyists.
The best suggestion I heard during the recent debates over this is...why not at least invest the Social Security taxes in our own U.S. treasury bonds? That way the federal government would at least be getting some interest on the money. Granted, the money would be coming from the federal treasury anyway...but at least...when we pay interest on these treasury bonds...we'd be paying OURSELVES.
2007-01-02 05:42:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think it should be privatized. If nothing is done with SS it will collapse. No question about it. We cannot continue on this course without some sort of change. Why can't people decide what happens to their money? I always found that interesting that some people think a majority of the people are stupid. There will never be total security. At least not provided by the government. We must do something ourselves.
2007-01-02 05:57:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
No way! But I do think people earning income of over $400,000 during retirement age should have to forfeit their SS income so there is more to go around for the less fortunate folks.
2007-01-02 05:36:56 · answer #7 · answered by Penelope Yelsopee 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Can you say Enron? Try the words Corporate Fraud. It is hard enough keeping the Gov from bleeding accounts. Who is going to keep the hands out of the cookie jar if it is private?
2007-01-02 05:48:46 · answer #8 · answered by Barabas 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That would pretty much defeat the purpose of it and put things back the way they were in the 1920's when poor elderly people were forced to beg and only the rich could "retire".
2007-01-02 05:39:14 · answer #9 · answered by Perry L 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
no, it should become strictly a retirement benefit, only exception would be a widow with small children should get benefits for her and the children . Which they do now .But the parent should keep getting the benefits for the child until he/she turns 18. Not like it is now at age 16 the benefits are turned over to the child.
2007-01-02 05:40:44 · answer #10 · answered by mamayer6 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋