TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Any alternatives to Social Security?
Any alternatives to Social Security?
Okay, I think we can all come to a general consensus that Social Security is, inexorably, going to go bankrupt if left at its current state. Taking into note that Bush has basically, seemingly given up on privatization (which I was actually half and half on) and actually taken a more liberal (and dare I say socialist) approach towards it (with the whole "give more to the poor" idea which sounds like redistribution), what are some plans and/or ideas you have (if you live in the US) to reform or change it.
I say we get rid of the program altogether. I know, a very crass, brash, almost asinine statement to make. But it seems that this is just another program that government can't accomplish any more, it's exceeded their boundaries. Places like Galveston county Texas had the option to opt out of Social Security a while back, and they did so. They took up a plan in which the employees pay the same amount to the fund that they were paying to Social Security, then the counties would "match" these payments just like an employer would . Basically the same process, and the employee is still paying the entire amount.
Each employee contribution was 13.78 % towards retirement. 9.737 % was paid to a private retirement account which would return 6.5% added up on a daily basis. The rest was for disability and life insurance to cover accidents.
Putting this into perspective, a person earning $20,000 a year could stand to earn $775 a month under Social Security. Whereas, under this plan, the same person with the same income would earn $2,740 a month.
A person with a $50,000 a year income could stand to earn about $1,302 a month from Social Security or about $15,600 a year. Under the Galveston county plan they could earn upwards of around $6,843 a month or $82,000 a year. $32,000 a year more than they made when they were actually working.
Now the reason I was for privatization is for this simple reason: it's your money, and the current system is doomed as is. Sure, it defies the general intentions for why this program is set up. But this is one thing you don't just decide "I'm going down with the ship". I could care less about the original intention of a program, if that program isn't going to fulfill what it needs to fulfill, then it's time to move on.
I dunno, I guess it seems a little radical to those who like the system and are more into keeping it the way it is.
Thoughts? Flames? I expect both 
| quote: |
| actually taken a more liberal (and dare I say socialist) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Sunsnail I would think it'd be more capitalist than socialist! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krysta_101 You think making things equal so that everyone gets the same amount is capitalist? What books have you been reading? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krysta_101 You think making things equal so that everyone gets the same amount is capitalist? What books have you been reading? |
People who don't save on their own don't deserve retirement.
Arbiter, while I agree that individual responsibility is neccessary and needs to be stressed even more in our 'individualistic' country, you cannot simply write all people who do not know how to invest as simply idiots who deserve their fate. Although it isn't hard, correct me if I'm wrong, but would simply putting your money into a savings account return more than SS? I realize that all of this is obvious to us, but it is not so to others. I have very smart friends who would have no idea what to do with their money. But of course, why should I be treated like a child by the government and punished (through low returns of SS) because my friend doesn't know how to invest his money.
Well, if my friend doesn't save for retirement, he'll need to work longer (increasing unemployment) and will have less money to spend (huritng the economy). Suddenly I am effected. There needs to be a better solution than SS. However, I really think itd be a gigantic clusterfuck if the government played no roll in people's retirement funds.
Krysta, I'm guessing you are a libertarian. From what I gather, you are saying 'Why should the government take my money and invest it for me, when I know I can do a hell of a lot better job myself.' I would most definently not see that as a liberal viewpoint, as I believe, someone correct me if I am wrong, that the liberal stance would want to help the poor invest actively. Wether or not they believe SS should be reformed is another case, but I believe they would want more government involvement in such issues. As for socialist, I am pretty sure the socialist would want even more government involvement. As far as trying to label, or find out where you politically align on this issue, I would look more towards government involvement.
How about everybody just gives me their money?
That should solve a lot of my problems....
In America does social security only mean a pension?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus How about everybody just gives me their money? That should solve a lot of my problems.... |
Just in case anybody cares, here's the breakdown of every dollar you give the government for Social Security.
70 cents goes to a trust fund that pays monthly benefits to retirees and their families and to widows, widowers, and children of workers who have died
19 cents goes to a trust fund that pays for the health care of all Medicare beneficiaries
11 cents goes to a trust fund that pays benefits to people with disabilities and their families
As for alternatives to social security (and no privitization is not an alternative), here are a few described briefly and web addresses that I go the info from.
- Increase taxes so that there isn't a shortage a funds (which is actually the most popular alternative, which makes me say 'bitch, please')
- Cuts in Social Security benefits which in the end, many say would hurt women and minorities, both of whome of course make less money than males, especially the devil aka the white male
- The government invests people's money in the private economy (this would be dissaster, however seeing as how this process will become corrupt before it even begins)
The alternatives, at least the ones I have seen are shit, go figure. So you either stick with a system that doesn't work, or you privitize. In the future, I don't see how there will even be an option, although I most definently can see the government bumping up taxes which will give me yet another reason to move out of this country I love so much, fuckin a.
http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-24es.html
Re: Any alternatives to Social Security?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krysta_101 Okay, I think we can all come to a general consensus that Social Security is, inexorably, going to go bankrupt if left at its current state. [snip] Thoughts? Flames? I expect both |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.