Would privatizing Social Security be a good thing?What's wrong with that?

Question

There's an organization called the National Committee to Preserve Social Security that always sends mail to my home,because my parents support that organization,and that organization is against privatizing Social Security.What's wrong with privatizing it?Wouldn't that be better in the long run?Wouldn't it be better now?

Answer 1

Yes if would be MUCH better to privatize Social Security. Mainly because their most likely won't be any Social Security left in the next 20 years because of mismanagement of the SS fund. Plus the rate of interest you would get by privatization would be MUCH higher than what you would get than with SS. So in the end you would have much more money for your retirement.

Answer 2

NO. Every thing that has been 'privatized' in the last several years has ended up costing taxpayers MORE>from prisons to hospitals to roads. The only way to be even halfway fair about this is to continue as it was set up, with one exception! Raise the ceiling on income level from which social security is taken. Right now, the huge gap between those at the top and mainstream America has grown because of the 'trickle down theory' of economics, which lowered the taxes on the wealthy to the lowest it has been since 1987 when Reagan lowered it to 33%. Before that, from 1933 to 1986 the average had been well above 50%. Part of that was, in the beginning, to pay off the debt of WW2 and because there were still so many in poverty after the Great Depression, when it was over 70%. However, even after the economy became strong, it stay that way and the rich still became richer and the middle class grew larger and stronger than it had ever been, and many of the poor were raised out of poverty. Todays tax rates on the top have far more loopholes and write offs than ever before, to the point the average tax paid by the top is, according to the Government and IRS, about 14%. There is no reason why the income level for paying into social security on that group cannot and should be raised. Greed has become the byword, rather than caring about the economic health of the nation as a whole. Social Security helps keep widows and their children, orphans and the disabled at least to keep their heads above water. This supports a consumer driven economy, as do decent wages for all. Only those with no thought of their nation, what makes it economically strong or personal greed, would be against social security or raising the income level on the top% to keep it sound.

Answer 3

Social Security will not disappear and has not been mismanaged. There are more people retiring because of the baby boom generation, and more people working than at an earlier time. Some people cannot save much money because wages have stagnated. Others have extra money they can save and put into Cds. Investing is always risky; any responsible financial planner will tell you that. Private companies charge investment fees which some people don't like to mention. Social Security is not necessarily the only source of retirement income, but research shows that many cannot or have not saved very much for their retirement and would be in trouble without Social Security.

Answer 4

people who retire have paid into Social protection for 40 years. you have freeloaders on SSI who did no longer pay taxes besides as the two dozen categories of SS reward. Thats the difficulty, no longer seniors who cant artwork to any extent further getting a earnings they paid into. human beings do have the liberty to keep for the destiny, they might even have an investment account like a 401K that the corporate contributes to or an IRA. Social protection is coverage, no longer investment vehicle. the reason it won't be privatized is by the fact: a million. The investment can lose money like in 2008 whilst the Dow grow to be at 6,500 2. somebody has to pay commissions on sales 3. There does no longer be adequate money to pay 37 million seniors who're owed reward 4. There does no longer be money for persons who want it because of disabiity, divorce or dying.

Answer 5

I love how people talk about these "plans". What make you think that one size fits all? Different people want different things. The only way for people to get them is to be free, and think for themselves.

So if you like the stock market, invest in it. If you would rather get the miserable 0.5% annual returns (that's not five percent, it's one half of one percent) that my generation is expected to get (I'm in my thirties) then I'm quite sure that you can find somebody who will be perfectly happy to keep your money for decades and pay you that paltry sum.

Here's an idea. They say that we need social security because some people are incompetent. So let's have social security only for incompetents! And there's an easy test: one pay day, go to them and say "You have to invest 15% of your money, but you have a choice: You can put it in a bank at 3-5% interest, you can put it in the stock market at greater risk but greater rewards if you use good judgment, or you can put it into social security, and get a 0.5% annual return. " If they pick social security, they're incompetent. And the great thing is, you don't have to force them into it, because the damned fools chose it for themselves! Which is more freedom than I ever had.

Answer 6

it really depends on how they want to "privatize" it...

the main plans that I have seen basically invests it in the stock market... the thing I don't like about that is.... the stock market can go down... and if it does... that's people's futures down the drain...

now... I haven't looked into it a whole lot... that's just the overview I get... it's good as long as the market is good...

and has anyone looked at the U.S. before Social Security? there's a reason it's there...

Answer 7

Privatizing Social Security will be bad, because most will not invest the money wisely and will have to depend on how well the stock market does. Also, you would have to pay your own health insurance, at a time you could least afford it.

Answer 8

It would be better, because it would allow us our freedom. Freedom to do what we choose with our income. Freedom from being confined to a program because a bureaucrat in 1945 thought it would be a good idea to plan others' lives for them.

I am 36 years old. I don't need the gov't. holding my hand. I can plan for my own retirement.

Remember, a gov't. that can give you everything you need can also take it away.

Ryoung and Jose, Socialist Security has nothing to do with health insurance.

Answer 9

Have you ever tried to make a claim to an insurance company? To capitalize they have to deny. Payment will be higher, benefits lower and if it goes bankrupt what then?

Answer 10

If it's privitized, where do I get free healthcare?