What do you think of Social Security privatization?

Question

I disagree with the current federal administration on almost all issues except liberal gun rights.

I gave the idea of privatization of Social Security as proposed by our president on creating accounts for young American citizens to invest in over three or more decades of active working life a serious thought.

If one is financially independent by the virtue of pride, perseverance and hard work and have a big nest egg in retirement savings, obviously that person doesn't need to receive a pension.

On the other hand, the majority of the people who have worked in active labor for three to five or six decades can always opt to receive the pension upon mandated age of retirement or verified disability to alleviate economic hardship.

If laissez-faire economic policy (w/o govt intervention except stock fraud & abuse) apply w/ the new elective admin, should SS be done away with in gradual dissolution to reduce govt size or stay preserved, whole or partial with private investment account?

To make my political view clear, I'm a registered Libertarian (green libertarian) and former Independent. I cast vote on any candidate of diverse political affiliations based on the appeal of honest campaign and character promoting progressive changes while striving to reduce government size. I'm a Jeffersonian type.

Answer 1

It's obvious you've given this important topic some thought (not sure about some who answered). However, here's the difference between status-quo and privatization:
There is an "aging" of America that is underway. If the system remains the way it is right now, there will be insufficient funding to fulfill even the paultry promise of a meager retirement to those on Social Security. Understand this: Social Security was never meant to be a "full retirement", it was, as mentioned by someone else, supposed to be a safety net for those who made no preparations for their retirement. Those who believe that Social Security should be a full retirement, also believe that welfare should support those who do not work, that govt is a surrogate parent who should look after every citizen for life. My only recommendation is that if you really believe that, move to Sweden, pay 90 percent income tax and live life large when you're old. The thought that big govt will ever efficiently handle or invest your money flies in the face of history and logic. The recommendation to privatize social security is nothing new. The thought is that people need to be more self-reliant and be allowed the freedom to decide how their hard earned wages will be invested. It does not say that the govt recommends you buy penny stock, it says that you'd do historically far better by putting your money in a mutual fund than in an account that politicians have routinely used for loans to foreign govts and pet projects. Additionally, investing in stocks held by mutual funds would further fund economic growth by reinvesting in our own economy. Is there fraud and corruption in private industry? Yes, but it at least gets public scrutiny, something the waste, fraud and abuse by govt officials on the Social Security coffers don't have to worry about. You want someone else to plan for your future? If so, then you've never fully become an adult who wants to take responsibility for their own gains and mistakes.

Answer 2

Social Security, in my opinion, needs to be there as a safety net, to provide a basic minimum standard of living. There's a reason why SS was enacted in the 1930's. Most people didn't have pensions from their companies and many elderly were impoverished. Many people don't have company paid pension plans now, and can't afford to contribute sufficient amounts to IRA's or 401k's on a regular basis. Besides, to the extent people control their own investments, they will make mistakes since they cannot foresee the future and can lose their savings. Think about the Enron collapse and the millions that workers who had invested in Enron lost. And, consider the general tendency of some people to gamble by making risky but potentially high yield investments! It will cost the government and the taxpayer more in the long run to support destitute and malnourished elderly people than it will to rescue Social Security.

Answer 3

Government only privatises things that aren't working so as to stop copping flak for it.

The outsourced utility/whatever then gets screwed by the contractor making maximum profit out of already screwed system.

Answer 4

I never liked the idea of the govt. taking and using MY $$$ for THEIR purposes. I know I can do a better job keeping and growing my money than our brilliant leaders can.

Answer 5

just the exposure to more people to the dynamics of investment..and seeing first-hand how it works..has to have a net-positive..

but the so-called "progressives"..(lol I laugh everytime I type that)..assume that would be a bad thing for the Country..

when all it is ..is fear they lose control over one of their bastions..to the free market..it's wrong.

Answer 6

I think it is a horrible idea, particularly as this industry has consistently erred on the side of big business and profit.

Answer 7

Great for the young folks