Having the gvmt force us into one kind of retirement plan is not only the antithesis of freedom, but it also forces us to take risks with our money that we normally wouldn't.
Don't you agree that retirement planing should be the job of the individual and not the job of the gvmt?
Don't you think you could do better with planning your retirement if you did it yourself?
2007-09-16 09:42:30 · 15 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Senior Citizens
I don't know if I could do a better job of planning but I do know that my financial adviser could. I wish I had the money that I paid into S.S. to invest, based on what my investments are doing my wife and I would be on top of the world.
2007-09-16 16:11:33 · answer #1 · answered by hdean45 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Believe it or not, we have that option up here in Canada, though very few people realize it....every penny that you PERSONALLY have paid into the social security fund in anticipation of getting a retirement cheque from the government, can be removed from government control and switched into Registered Retirement Savings Plans (or their equivalent).
At least it was this way when I retired from my (government) job to take care of my ageing and ailing parents in 1995. I don't imagine that they have actually changed the laws since then.
What you can't touch is the amount contributed by your employers (which in Canada is always an amount equal to your own).
How loud do you think the government will scream if all you people who have potential retirement funds with them right now decide to take this money out and administer it yourselves?
2007-09-16 16:53:34 · answer #2 · answered by Susie Q 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Privatization always sounds like a good idea when the stock market is doing well... but in any case, Social Security does not equal retirement planning. Nobody's stopping you from putting money aside for retirement (I assume you haven't yet retired).
Just look at the wonders privatization did for health care in the US, and maybe you'll think twice...
P.S. You seem intelligent, but I'm always suspicious when something is equated with "freedom". That's the kind of mind-f#¢k that the right wing tries to sell us: "Disagree with us, and lose your freedom!" Often the exact opposite is true.
peace
.
2007-09-17 03:35:45 · answer #3 · answered by OhYeah?! 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I do not.
In working with Seniors for the years that I did, I have seen many persons who thought they were prudently investing and then when the Stock Market went into it's slump, they lost the vast majority of what they had worked years to put into it.
This is what privatization is all about. Are you ready to lose your investment with the Stock Market the way it is now? If you wanted to choose your own direction, you should have opened a Roth IRA several years ago, it's not too late, unless you happen to be close to 70 years old.
Actually, knowing what I know now, I don't think I could have done better. I have a home business that suppliments my Social Security (remember Social Security wasn't founded to actually be a full retirement income) and think I will do quite well.
2007-09-17 02:08:56 · answer #4 · answered by Cranky 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Mistake #1: A belief that Social Security is a retirement plan. Social Security was always a safety net...not a retirement plan. Those who use SS as a retirement plan have FAILED to provide for their own old age security.
Mistake #2: Any belief that government can do a better job with your money than you can. Of course intelligent folk can and do a much better job at retirement planning than the government. There is no government program in operation that can compete with private industry.
Mistake #3: A belief that ALL citizens can do a better job at retirement planning than the government. Unfortunately the baby boomers are a prime example of this error in thinking. A large percentage of boomers haven't set aside enough money for next month's bills much less for any future retirement plan. I think that they truly believe that SS is THEIR RETIREMENT PLAN and will be complaining in a few years that their retirement plan is not paying them enough and they will be angry as heck that their retirement plan has failed them!!
2007-09-16 17:31:24 · answer #5 · answered by malter 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
For whom do you think this alternate plan would be better?
The person wih an entry-level-wage-paying job who can't afford new shoes, much less to set aside something for his or her retirement years?
The disabled who are unable to hold down a job? What money do they have to salt away some periodically?
The sick, who need that money they've saved to pay for medications and special orthopedic equipment?
No, I could not have done a better job of planning for my retirement. I am not savvy about investments, and the stock market has been known to crash and to destroy the savings of investors without discrimination.
My retirement income is decent only because my employer took an interest in it and helped me contribute to my 401K. Social Security is barely adequate, and only because I'm not dependent on it. My husband has much better benefits -- Why? Because he's a man and has always earned more.
Man, did you ever open up a can of worms!
2007-09-16 20:29:25 · answer #6 · answered by felines 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree with many of the writers. Social Security was to supplement retirement.
I see many folks that simply cannot handle money and would end up with nothing for their retirement if they were allowed to use their own planning.
Right now it takes 3.3 people to pay the social security benefits. By the time all baby boomers reach retirement, there will only be 2.1 people to support the same program for each recipient.
2007-09-16 19:00:32 · answer #7 · answered by slk29406 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Social Security was never meant to be one's sole source of retirement income. Franklin Delano Roosevelt admitted as much in his message to the Congress asking for enactment of the system. Even military personnel are being urged to put part of their pay into what is called a Thrift Savings Plan. IRAs, 401-Ks, etc. have added remarkable amounts of money to the nest egg of retirees.
As far as the risks that government takes, what piddling amount is left in the Trust Fund is invested in government bonds and T-bills. What is needed is a requirment that a minimum two-thirds vote of both houses of the Congress is necessary to shift any of those trust fund dollars for other programs and purposes. Lawmakers should have realized that adding that annual cost-of-living allowance to the check every year would also add to the total tab. At one time it was twice a year.
2007-09-16 17:59:00 · answer #8 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Privatization is not the answer for us seniors. Too late for us. It would kill us if it was implemented. It would work for the young because time is on their side. The other part is the Social Security needs massive serious overhaul. It needs to put an end to all these give away programs.
There is now into play that the working young will have a portion of their income that must be put into a 401(k). Of course it won't affect us because when they retire, we would have long been gone.
2007-09-16 17:31:46 · answer #9 · answered by Tinman12 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Are you smoking that funny
tobacco again. Either that,
or you are very young.
SS is the best system of
retirement for the average working person than anything
IF IT IS ADMINISTERED,
the way it was set up.
If you want to use a portion
of your life earnings and save
it in any way you choose, there is nothing stopping you.
Would you like a bunch of
bucks in the stock market
right now??? NOT ME
It's when we have a
corrupt government administering any program with a lot of money....OOPS
IT GETS GONE.
P.S. London has had a run on their banks for about a week
now. Read my lips: Have you
ever heard of a run on the bank?
2007-09-16 20:00:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋