2007-12-25 17:40:17 · 10 answers · asked by Marukesu 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Instead of the Governemnt deciding where to invest your money citizens would have a choice where to invest their money. This would reduce overhead and possibly prevent Government from borrowing the money from the people. Pro's would be that it has been show it would bring a lot more money to people on average than the Gov run soc sec program, Cons could be that poor people won't know where to invest.
2007-12-25 17:44:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
Social Security ends up providing less than a 2% return on your investment.
By privatizing some or all of it, the theory is that the market could do better.
Two problems here. In my opinion the market is crooked as hell and I don't want to trust my money to it.
Second, the US Govt does not have the money to privatize all of it. The Social Security Trust found is empty. Congress is on a pay as you go system, which is Illegal for American corporations without a waiver from the govt. They, in my opinion have stolen this money from the American people.
If an American corporation handled its pension funds the way Congress does, its corporate officers would be in jail.
Most companies that permission to handle pension funds as they go are in dire financial trouble and ultimately fail. The is why the government set passed a law a few years ago that lets the federal govt take over failing pension plans.
The office takes over bankrupt pension plans and forces workers to take a lower pension amount.
I am not a big Al Gore fan, but he was right about one thing in the 2000 election. He kept talking about the Social Security trust fund and putting the money for it somewhere congress couldn't spend it. He kept calling it a lockbox and we need it.
2007-12-26 02:32:33 · answer #2 · answered by wcowell2000 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Some people's math skills amaze me.... If you take 5 dollars a week, for a year (52 weeks) you get a whopping 260 dollars, if you were to do this for 40 years, assuming that you work from age 16 to 56, you will have a nice nest egg of 10,400 dollars...
As far as those that say poor people can go to the library and learn to invest miss the fact that poor people are poor, they have a hard enough time buying clothing, food, and trying to pay bills on time...
Now as for what privatizing social security is.... I'm not sure, but from what I'm reading, it looks like it means doing away with it...a step that'll be good for us.... I don't really know... I have my doubts about it...
If it be excepted that investing in the stock market is a gamble, then would this be forced gambling...
2007-12-26 02:26:27 · answer #3 · answered by jerome2all 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Under the current system the government guarantees an inflation adjusted benefit based on your total payments into the system with low wage workers receiving extra benefits at the expense of high wage workers. Under a privatized system the average expected benefit would be larger but it would also be more risky and there would be no guarantee of inflation adjustment. The Government would require you to save and invest some portion of you income in stocks or bonds, and the proceeds would be your retirement nest egg.
2007-12-26 02:03:56 · answer #4 · answered by meg 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It means that money that hardworking Americans have paid to be secure in retirement and in case of disability will be diverted into private funds. Some stockbrokers will make a whole lot of money. The average working person is likely to get as good as a return as the people who had a 401k in Enron.
2007-12-26 01:59:38 · answer #5 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
They want to take what's left in the socia lsecurity fund and have us gamble on the stock market!So they can ignore the trillions that the government actually owes it!Then we get taken by the people handling our money!Which is why it was not invested in the stock market!
Have you ever heard of "the crash of 29"?The stock market crash that lead to the GREAT DEPRESSION of the 1930's!
This would be the second greatest fraud on the American people by the Republican party!
THE FIRST BEING 911!!!
2007-12-26 02:21:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It means having people take personal responsibility for their money and their future.
The fact is that Social Security was never intended as a retire program, it was supposed to be a retirement supplement. Anybody that retires and only has social security and who has to choose between food and other things has only themselves to blame. if you put five dollars a week away every week into a savings account from when you first started working you would have a decent nest egg when you retire. There isn't anybody out there that can't afford five dollars a week.
As to the argument that poor people won't know how to invest. I call bull**** on that. Anybody, even homeless people can go to a library and read books and learn about how to invest.
2007-12-26 01:46:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
I actually agree with them here. Social Security in it's current form was once useful, but an outdated concept in its current form. Kind of like many unions; they were great in the 1800's, but are doing more harm then good today.
2007-12-26 02:07:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Screwing it up for other generations to come. Its a great process and needs to be left alone.
2007-12-26 02:12:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Someone is gonna make a lot of money again.
2007-12-26 01:44:52 · answer #10 · answered by Michael R 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋