We do, and the reason why we heavily tax casinos is to help offset the social cost of the catastrophic losses suffered by morons, addicts and others.

Past that, I don't get why this is a "Libs" thing - I'm not a liberal under any definition, I want to keep as much of my money as possible. Other people going broke forces me to spend my money on them, too - like it or not, that's the way it is. So let's not change a bad system for a worse one that allows them to go broke faster and in more ways.

I'm not sure what it's like in your part of the country, but honestly quite a few "libs" I know hate the lottery system for being about the most regressive 'tax' in the world - and I've never met a "Repub" who got all up in arms because dumb poor folk were getting charged a 49% tax on their lottery EV without being told about it or where it was going. So like ...

So if one was to opt out of SS what would happen to the money they already "invested" into it? I'm not a fan of it myself, but I don't see it going away... Ever.

I wasn't opposed to SS being privatized initially, til I lost more than half of my retirement fund when the market crashed in 2008. I'm too old to be starting over from scratch, and I moved my money to a bond fund the day that Lehman went under so I didn't lose as much as most of my co-workers who don't pay attention.

In that same realm, my employer recently announced that they are ending our pension plan (what we have in there is staying and will earn interest) and instead putting the money they typically give us annually into our retirement savings plan. My initial thought was "Ok, I'll just make sure that money goes into one of the safer funds" and then found out it will be distributed among funds in the same percentages as regular retirement savings plan funds. I considered the pension plan the "safe" money and the retirement savings plan as the "risk" money. Now I have to figure out how to keep the right mix so I don't have all my eggs in one basket. It's giving me a headache.

^^ See that's my thing. I support SS being a safety net, and frankly I'd support people with a certain level of income to have some sort of opt-out thing, though I admit I don't know the details of how it works currently as I'm more familiar with SSI and SSDI than retirees.

However, that said, if you remove that safety net in favor of privitization you now have people with NO safety net. I find it interesting that Ghostwriter didn't have an answer to what you do when people DO end up without money - whether due to a market crash or being utterly irresponsible, it happens. So then what? We let people starve? We pay more in food stamps, TANF, Section 8, Medicare, Medicaid, nursing homes, and so on? We create a new safety net and then have the saem problems all over again?

Um, so why have casinos if you have so many problems with addicts, morons, etc. (your words)? This is, of course, a redundant question. The answer is because we as a people have freewill to do dumb stuff. As such, I do not believe it is my responsibility to rescue people who do dumb stuff with their money. I do believe it is our responsibility as a society to help the truly helpless and indigent. But not the morons and addicts.

How do you know that changing the SS system by privatizing a portion of it would necessarily be bad? Is this what the talking heads have told you? If we haven't tried it how do we know it won't work? Instead you would have us we keep bailing it out and throwing good money after bad. If we do the same thing over and over again why should we expect a different outcome? That is just crazy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...security-fund/#

I put my money into mutuals over the last 20 years and while the funds have gone up and down over this time frame I am well into the plus side. I am not a genius when it comes to investments but a (very) little common sense and one can build equity. One has to look at the long term results not the short term fluctuations.

What would one call someone who supports gambling or the lottery and then bemoans the fact that some people become addicted and lose all their money? Maybe I have misrepresented the "liberal" viewpoint but it is certainly not a conservative one. Perhaps it is just an insane viewpoint, instead. I am truly baffled.

I am in NC and can assure you that our state, which until this year has been run by "libs", in both chambers for the last 60 years , installed a lottery for "education" over the objections of those more conservative in beliefs. This lottery is a joke as the funds do not go directly to education and instead go into the general fund just like SS funds do at a national level. Education has not received extra due to lottery receipts and now we are laying off teachers. I am sick and tired of our "leaders" wasting our money and lying to us about their intentions.

SS is a sham and never was intended to be a retirement fund. It is a safety net and even at that a poor one. 15% of our money goes to prop this joke up and we are in the red this year.

[QUOTE=Drolefille;2024237Ghostwriter didn't have an answer to what you do when people DO end up without money - whether due to a market crash or being utterly irresponsible, it happens. [/QUOTE]

I don't care. The market will rebound it always does. One never loses everything unless you take all your money out.

Being irresponsible...I couldn't care less. They can figure it out themselves.

From the Social Security Administration page itself:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html


Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, what we now think of as Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added.

Keep in mind, however, that the Social Security Act itself was much broader than just the program which today we commonly describe as "Social Security." The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program. (Full text of the 1935 law.)

Point taken. However this also indicates that it was never meant to be to sole or primary source of retirement funds.

"It is impossible under any social insurance system to provide ideal security for every individual. The practical objective is to pay benefits that provide a minimum degree of social security—as a basis upon which the worker, through his own efforts, will have a better chance to provide adequately for his individual security." -- From the Report of the Social Security Board recommending the changes which were embodied in the 1939 Amendments.

I should have parsed my words better and stated that it was not originally envisioned as the sole or primary source of retirement income. I still call it a sham as the return on investment is poor and the Trust Fund is not there. There is no money set aside by our Federal government.

So, if they can't afford to eat, it's cool to let them die. If they can't afford rent or their mortgage, they should be evicted.

Troll more. :rolleyes:

I have already opted out of SS once. I still had money invested in it, but for the years that I was opted out, I did not pay into the system. This was a part of Louisiana employees' retirement options. I only participated for part of my residency, but I was able to take $14,000 out of the system and rollover into a 401K. My husband took his out and paid a penalty to just keep the money. My 401K lost 45% of it's value the next year when the stock market tanked.:rolleyes:

And if abortion is not allowed and they are made to have children to hell with the kids-let them live on the streets as well.

If only they were responsible. Responsible people never need help! They should pull themselves up by their bootstraps!

BOOTSTRAPS!

That must be it! No one issued them their bootstraps! Quick...get everyone some bootstraps, and all are problems are solved.

Risk or not I would love to be able to do that. The way it looks now, I'll never see the SS benefits anyway ( unless I get maimed or actually live past 80) so even if I lost 60% of my money it'd still be better than not getting anything. I'm still in my 20s and I've already paid about 34k in SS taxes; I'd probably be a millionaire by 50 if I was able to invest that money into 401k, Roth, or mutual funds ( in addition to my other investments).

THAT SOUNDS LIKE SOCIALISM!