Should Social Security be optional?

Question

Currently the affluent are subsidizing the rest of us.

Answer 1

Two points - the affluent are NOT subsidizing the rest of us.

Social Security taxes have a cap around the 80-90k mark (not sure what the 2007 number is); in other words, after you make pass a certain income threshold you stop paying social security taxes.

And I think some sort of mandatory savings plan like social security SHOULD exist; if you go long enough in life you'll meet plenty of people too stupid to invest their own money and literally do need the government to save it for them.

The downside is that the government manages money almost as poorly as these people do.

Answer 2

Currently, and since forever, savings accounts have been optional in the US. Statistics show that the vast majority of people in the US from the middle class on down cannot and do not save money. Instead, they spend every cent they get their hands on and go into debt via 2nd mortgages and credit cards. In the face of such sad statistics, how can the government hope they will turn it around when given a choice of investments or worse yet, allow them to get their hands on the money? They simply cannot. They've never been savers (and they are the majority of people) and they do not know a darn thing about saving or investing. The current generations beginning to enter the workforce will wind up supporting millions of broke, in debt homeless retired people in the future. No Social Security should not be optional and no the affluent aren't subsidizing the rest of us as you put it. There is a maximum payment each person can make and once that is reached, no more payment is made during the year. That payment limit is considered in the 'middle class' not the affluent.

I worked for Social Security for 33 years. I saw the faces of people who hadn't saved a dime or made additional plans for retirement and counted on Social Security as their only income and found out age age 62+ that they couldn't afford to retire. It was sad and very shameful. Social Security was meant to 'supplement' a person's other retirement plans and investments, however, too many people don't remember that part, don't save their money and don't invest. We'd be a lot worse off as a nation if we 'relied' on the average person to make the right choices. I've seen it first hand and up close and it wasn't pretty.

Answer 3

Currently, the affluent are getting a tax break. Above earnings of about $94,000, they no longer pay Social Security taxes. The US Supreme Court has determined that SS deductions are a tax.

Social Security should be phased out completely. It is socialism. Socialism does not work. This system has been propped up over the past 50 years by Congress.

There are many drawbacks to SS. For example, retirement benefits are paid to anyone who has paid into SS and has retired. If a person made 50 million dollars and has 25 million in assets, he still gets his SS payments. The money is coming from taxes on people earning minimum wages and on up. The poor are being taxed to pay the rich. That is the exact opposite of socialism.

Answer 4

No -- it should be mandatory but privatized (meaning private accounts in which participants select from a menu of mutual funds). This cures J Something's point that many people are too stupid to save voluntarily -- yet would make Social Security vastly more productive for the individual, and entirely eliminate it from contributing to gov't budget problems. (Too good to be true, I know).

However, this is one case where the affluent actually do NOT much subsidize the rest. Social Security payroll taxes you pay are capped, and the more you pay in, the more you receive.

The groups that DO subsidize social security are:
- People who die relatively early
- Alien guest workers who pay taxes while in the US, but are not eligible to receive benefits after they've returned home.
- Illegal aliens who've used a fake social security number and so pay the taxes.

Answer 5

No, because we have to pay for the baby boomers in the next couple years were gonna need whatever money is around to pay for it. Also, privatization of SS for younger workers is a good idea because the markets provide a better return than goverment investments. Social Security would of been fine if the goverment did not raid it for funds to spend on other programs. Medicare is the one we should really worry about in the long run because healthcare costs exceeded inflation, and baby boomers too. The politcans screw all of us here. Benrake, warning both parties to get im sure. Social Security, or Private Retirement, one of them options should be required period because of the fact if you save for your retirment its not fair the taxpayer support someone did not make that disicision. If the worker does not choose one or other option the goverment will when garnished 10% of wages to pay to into SS account. Freeloaders in retirement is not a option.

Answer 6

If no person contributes to social secure practices what occurs to all of the thousands and thousands of individuals now getting advantages because of the fact they are retired and have no longer something, babies are mentally or bodily disabled, survivor advantages for babies from deceased discern, death benefit for a companion. All of those are paid from present day contributions. while i all got to work, there became no such factor as a 401K or an IRA. a lot of people have not got any selection yet to proceed to exist decrease cost expenses and social secure practices money. Why are you complaining interior the 1st place? Social secure practices can help you for the period of your lifetime for many stuff earlier you retire. lots money is wasted by skill of the government for remote places entanglements and stupid military operations, like $one million billion a month and facilitates to develop in user-friendly terms some people. that's idiotic.

Answer 7

Great question !!!

"j something" Hit the nail on the head !!

I will add, people need to wake up and stop expecting the government, the rich, mom & dad or anyone else, to take care of them. Choice each individual makes throughout their life brings them to where they are. The government has no clue how to manage money either so depending upon them is financial suicide.

Wake up people... S.S. may or may not be there for you but I sure have a higher standard of living than what S.S. will give me alone !!!

: )

Answer 8

What would happen to you if you lost your job, or became disabled?