If you had a choice about Social Security Taxes, what would you do?

Question

1. Continue down the current path of letting the Government spend the money you are forced to give up.

2. Take control of the money, and find better ways to invest it, so that you might actually have some money down the pike.

What say you?

Cookie Monster below:
Agreed,
However, there are too many greedy politicians who see the SS Fund as their own spending account.

Melinda below:
Agreed,
I am saving big time for my retirement, but I also have to give up thousands of dollars a year, that I probably will never see.

Samantha below:
Good Luck, hopefully there will still be money available when you retire. Personally I am investing enough money right now, so that I will have some when I retire for good.

Kenneth C. below:

Bingo, more money being invested is a good thing for the economy.

Answer 1

My what an unbiased question.

Let me think. Social Security is a form of insurance. It is guarenteed income (unlike every other form of investment). I buy health insurance. I buy house insurance. I buy car insurance. I buy life insurance. I want to make sure that I have income in the future, no matter what happens. I don't want to end up like my great grandfather did during the depression. I love my country and I don't mind paying taxes to support and defend it.

Yes, I think I will continue to support social security.

Answer 2

Somewhere in the middle. Social Security isn't all for retired people, so not everyone who may use it will have a chance to make proper investments with it. So I think there should be some flat just paying into it.

On the other hand, when I look at what I pay into social security. That money would probably be much better used in an IRA or some other retirement fund. It would make more money in the long run and I think be cheaper for the government. It also may help the economy if more people are investing and have more disposable income when they retire.

Answer 3

Actually, I'd have social security monies rolled into what is better known as a "Flexible Spending Account" (or FSA). It would entail that individuals, not the government, make their own choices as to how they want to spend/invest. You could allocate percentages to healthcare expense, tax-deferred investments or whatever. All monies earned towards this in a person's lifetime would be locked in to government-backed securities as a safety net. Simply put, if at age 55 one has the need for long term hospitalization or emergency surgery and lacks available health insurance, then he could borrow funds from his account. Of course, the government would still offer a supplemental plan such as medicare, so the individual does not exhaust his FSA. I'm not sure how the details would be worked out, but it seems more reasonable than allowing congress to continue spending our taxes (and demanding more revenue) like the drunken sailors they are now. Newt Ginghrich had a plan similar to this, but it sounded a bit more complex.

Answer 4

I'm going to start collecting in about three years. I also have a pension and other investments. I would recommend even to young people to continue paying into Social Security. You could become disabled tomorrow. No investment is guaranteed. The way things have been going lately the whole stock market could go belly up. There are few people who remember the Great Depression, there are no guarantees that won't happen again and Social Security is good insurance that people won't be completely wiped out.

Answer 5

Think about why the system was invented in the first place - the Great Depression.

It's not supposed to be the sole source of retirement income, but a safety cushion.

The market "average" return doesn't mean crap if your retirement just got wiped out by a crash, and you don't have 10 to 15 years to make up for that.

The ones who are clamoring for "control" over their accounts would be the first ones clamoring for a government bail-out if they got hit by the normal fluxuations of the market.

Answer 6

Raise the FICA taxable income cap and keep SS. It's social insurance, not a pension. People only treat it as a pension because real wage growth in the U.S. is low and cost of living is high.

Social Security's administrative costs SMOKE Wall Street (only 3% versus 12% + for Wall Street). Plus, you have the danger of seeing population bubbles lose all their savings in private accounts as the bubbles start to retire and liquidate their holdings. The first person to sell in those instances wins. The last one is a loser. So, volatility will be brutal!

Answer 7

Remove the income cap on social security taxes. Right now, you play a flat percentage rate on your taxes if you make less than $90,000 or so a year, but after that you still pay as if you were making $90,000. In other words, if the rate were 10%, a guy making $90,000 is paying 10% of his income into SS, but a guy making $180,000 is only paying 5%. If we get rid of the cap and make social security payments a flat tax, we will have solved the problem.

Answer 8

I would select option number 2. I can do a hell of a lot better investing those funds myself than the government ever could. Heck even a basic savings acount at 5% would earn more than you would get for social security.

Answer 9

I would have hit a 3 teamer this weekend! dallas , Arizona and Seattle/SF under. What do you think. Then again if someone doesn't put much in it, then it does help them and the kids and stuff, tough question. take care.

Answer 10

I want option 2!

The nation was seriously mislead by those that were opposed to Bush wanting to reform Social Security. Did you know the program they were so oppossed to is the same one that members of congress use. They just wanted to have the money at there disposal and sold out future generations of Americans