NO. period. That is all I have to say.
2007-06-15 12:27:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
5⤋
Last week I thought no. But I started taking a course in Social Security Disability Insurance, and it is about as convoluted as it gets.
There are areas on your SS statement the SSA doesn't even understand. The whole quarter system makes no sense to anyone. The rules are entirely ambiguous.
I'm a bureaucrat for a living. I know how to fill out forms. I know what they are, how do get them, and what to do with them. Heck, I've even created a few. I understand rules and how to follow them to navigate the through the government.
With all that being said, let me say that the system as it stands is way too bureaucratic.
I'm guess I'm still not for privatizing the system, but it still needs to change.
2007-06-15 19:46:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by tom w 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes, do the math. Mutual funds ROI vs. benefits for social security. Last year, being self-employed, I paid into social security pretty close to what I could have fully funded a Roth IRA. So yeah, I'm a little bitter. And at this point, additional funds won't add up like it could have for about 20 years of working. So I argue for privatizing social security, not for my retirement, but for my children. Do the math, ROI on 45 years of saving in mutual funds, and look at benefits from social security. Talk to a finical adviser. We need to wean ourselves off this waste of money.
My solution is simple and I think would work. There may have to be a few numbers to tweak, but basically, have the self-employed like I fund the current and future needs of social security. An employer matches the employee’s payment into social security. Give people the option to opt out. If they do, they take their 6.2% and invest in funds with a solid track record. Employers match into social security to fund current needs. Then employers can invest say 5% of their income, but fund SS with 7.2% (this is one of the numbers that maybe needed to be tweaked) as more people opt out and the need for benefits decline, employers can fund less and invest more. So after ten years perhaps employers can invest 8% and fund 4.2%. After twenty, perhaps it is 10% invested and 2.2% funding SS. That way no one pays more than current levels. Meanwhile employers continue to match 6.2% of employee's wages. There will be a shortfall, but you can continue the funding even after there is no need for benefits, until the funds are balanced. And then goodbye SSA. I know if even at 3 or 4% of my income, saving into an IRA is a better return than paying 6.2% and waiting for social security.
And even at 8$/hr for employees, 6.2% into an IRA for 45 years is better than social security.
So yeah privatize.
2007-06-15 20:57:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by robling_dwrdesign 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Now, after the politicians have been raiding the surplus for the last twenty years, they want to privatize it.
The system was originally meant to be self supporting and when Roosevelt created it he wrote that it was the people's money and no elected official was allowed to monkey around with the funds.
Dutch Reagan re-wrote the rules and began stripping the surplus funds out of Social Security in the 1980's.
Every president since, both parties, have had their sticky little fingers in our money. This is the main reason, their talking about dumping the program.
It's time to take the government away from the over-privleged rich kids, they haven't been working for you or me for decades.
2007-06-15 19:44:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Absolutely. My grandmother makes more than 100k dollars a year between school teacher pension, deceased grandfather military pension and social security. For what? Doing nothing. And a friend's grandmother is having problems paying bills, so she works. That means that her social security benefits are heavily decreased (makes a lot of sense, no?).
The elderly in the US are far too wealthy and are getting money for doing absolutely nothing. Many have not put into the system nearly what they are taking from it. With individual privitization, you'd have a more captilistic and better system. If you pay a ton in, you get a ton out - it's your money. If you pay little in, you get little out - that's what's fair. A system that depends upon each generation being larger than the previous generation is hazardous and can't be sustained.
2007-06-15 19:33:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by Rob 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
If we had invested 25% of it into DJIA indexed fund when Bush went into office, we'd have a bigger surplus now than ever before.
Of course, the Democrats would just spend it, so it really doesn't matter.
2007-06-15 19:35:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by AngelaTC 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
pros... probably be more efficient... especially for those who are more wealthy...
cons... those earning small amounts of money could have trouble saving enough, especially if the market fluctuates... which frankly, it's probably a bit due...
2007-06-15 19:31:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
There would be no change in the present situation. Some government cronies would get rich. More would come out of your pay cheque to cover it but you would bet less return. Also see Ferret.
2007-06-15 19:32:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by St N 7
·
2⤊
4⤋
Yes, it sure should, or Henry the 8th up there better have a damn good IRA account.
2007-06-15 19:31:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by Army Retired Guy 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
The next step would be business running the country......oops...too late
2007-06-15 19:29:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Ferret 5
·
2⤊
4⤋