Is it right to force people to invest in a scheme like social security that does have risks to insure that everyone lives at the poverty level, or let people invest as they see best for their life?
If we live in a free country, why do we accept being forced to invest in a risky plan that is mis-managed by gvmt officials?
Wouldn't it be better if we gave people the choice to opt in to social security if they wanted to, and let others invest on their own if that was their choice mad by their own free will?
If we think we know best for others, then should we be able to control more of their actions?
2007-09-17 02:39:17 · 11 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Senior Citizens
I agree that freedom is better and that the socialist retirement system we have is a ponzi scheme. The ROI sucks compared to the Stock market, which out-performed SSI even during WWII and the Depression.
It is the biggest boondoggle ever laid upon an empire and it will destroy this country. We will end up with a nation of greedy, self-entitled useless oldsters supported by a few over-taxed kids and desperate illegal aliens.
As for me, I'm going without the digital TV, new car, and cell phone, in an attempt to max out my IRA every-year. I don't trust SSI and I don't trust Washington....
2007-09-17 02:58:08 · answer #1 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, the whole point of Social Security was insurance for the aged, unemployed, and disabled. It was meant to "supplement" personal savings and private pension plans. So you still have freedom to choose by saving and investing part of your money.
Somebody has to pay for it, thus it is taken out of our pay.
But to answer your question, based on earnings today, how many people do you think could invest? Remember we live among the have and have nots, the educated and uneducated.
Social Security is better than nothing at all in that respect. Just tell President Bush, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Therein lies the problem.
2007-09-17 03:01:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
What if you were a young man with a young wife and two small children and you died in a car wreck? Would you have the cash saved up to help your wife raise these children--probably not. SS will step in and help your wife raise those children by supplementing her income. When grandma gets old she can draw on grandpa's or hers which ever is the most. You could have been a great friend of my father if he was still alive. He hated paying SS all his life. He died at 59 so I figure he paid my way and his way. I have widows benefits and will take my own in another 2 years as they will be more than what I receive now. I paid SS all but 5 years since I was 16. I don't think todays kids would start any kind of plan to live on later--I think it is fine.
2007-09-17 03:24:34 · answer #3 · answered by lilabner 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Social protection, for my area, desires to be there as a protection internet, to grant a hassle-unfastened minimum familiar of residing. there's a clarification why SS exchange into enacted interior the 1930's. maximum persons did no longer have pensions from their businesses and multiple elderly have been impoverished. a lot of human beings have not got organisation paid pension plans now, and can't have adequate money to make a contribution adequate quantities to IRA's or 401k's on a regular foundation. besides, to the quantity human beings administration their very own investments, they're going to make blunders in view that they can't foresee the destiny and can lose their savings. think of with regard to the Enron crumple and the loads of thousands that workers who had invested in Enron lost. And, evaluate the final tendency of a few human beings to gamble via making risky yet doubtlessly severe yield investments! it is going to value the government and the taxpayer greater interior the long-term to assist destitute and malnourished elderly human beings than it is going to to rescue Social protection.
2016-11-15 10:54:32 · answer #4 · answered by costoso 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You really are on a tear, aren't you?
The two are not mutually exclusive. I am free to live my life as I see fit, and I wholly believe in the Social Security program, and, as was pointed out yesterday, it needs some safeguards to prevent raiding by the pork barrel folks.
Also, as was pointed out yesterday, people should have sense enough to set aside some of their income into a retirement savings account if they can spare it. That's the key. Not everyone can spare it.
You defeat your own argument when you say "If we think we know best for others, then should we be able to control more of their actions?"
We DON'T know what's best for others, so, in a democracy, we provide a failsafe for those who were foolish or too poor to provide for themselves a supplement to Social Security.
You do not need to withdraw from Social Security if you don't want to. (At least I THINK you don't have to!) Leave the money there for Congress to raid.
2007-09-17 03:58:57 · answer #5 · answered by felines 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
What do we do with those that invested on thier own but did it poorly or those that just didn't invest at all? Do we just let them starve and die? Social Security is a small percent and yet people still don't save on thier own and just hope things work out. it doesn't work, so SS is a safety net, it is not supposed to be the only retirement funds for seniors.
2007-09-17 03:03:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have to agree with Feline on this. I didnt expect to be divorced at 55 years of age. I didnt expect my loving ex to swindle me out of every thing we had worked for these past 20 years, so now Im stuck with trying to work on a public job for pennies and worry about what my future holds after SS if I am able to work that long.
There are many people like me with no choice left but social security.
2007-09-17 04:24:40 · answer #7 · answered by ncgirl 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
All insurance has risks. With social security at least one knows the risks. Better than a privet plan that when you retire tells you, "Oh you had a hang nail 10 ears ago so your clam is denied. I live quite free on my S.S. plan.
2007-09-17 03:11:35 · answer #8 · answered by Ray T 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Social security was just to help out and not tobe the only income to support yurself but today people are living onjust their social security but I think you have a choice now or do you ?
2007-09-17 03:06:49 · answer #9 · answered by Gypsy Gal 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely, but then what would we do for those that opted out but didn't save a dime? You know it would happen.
Also, if we "opt out' the system crashes under the flood of seniors signing up and living longer. Then what? They would just raise the rest of our taxes (oh, wait, they want to do that too).
We are stuck, our taxes will continue to increase and most of us will not have an option to retire, ever. Death will be my retirement.
2007-09-17 02:48:11 · answer #10 · answered by Gem 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋