Social Security
 

What do you believe should be done?

Commentary by one of my law school professors:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05033/451268.stm

I pretty much agree with your prof. Especially the part about divesting the investing (interesting) of the surplus money. It shouldn't be too difficult to make more than the government pays for loans to itself.

Heck, I'll bet Rudey could get a better return on the money.

I worry that he people who come up with these plans and vote on them aren't relying on the outcome because they have their own retirement system/plan.

this is going to be a non-stop problem because birth and death rates will fluctate all the time. I don't care about social security personally, so I've learned to accept that, just like taxes, I won't see a penny somewhere down the road. All I care about now is providing for the elderly now and making sure money doesn't run out for them. Not fair that they should suffer because they are living older.

As for penalizing the early retirement benefits, that seems fair from my point of view. If you're collecting earlier, then you're digging into money too soon. Oh well, it's not up to me but I hope somebody makes a fair decision someday.

I could get you 30% but we'll talk later about that.

It's simple, people should have the right to invest in their retirements as they wish.

The average market return is 10% a year and if you put it into more stable and secure securities, the risk goes way down and you still receive a sizable rate.

Additionally, there is a large class of people being denied these investments. I'd be willing to be this professor has a large chunk of his retirement invested actually. But many people do not.

Most economists and experts believe you should be able to invest a portion of your retirement in a stable manner (some say even in an unstable manner). The question though is having enough to pay for the switch to this type of program. This question is also separate from "saving social security" in my opinion. And yes, I don't want 75% of my social security benefits. I want 100% and I want to maximize that.

DeltAlum on the other hand doesn't have to worry about his social security since there is enough to cover him.

-Rudey

The age should be raised and you should only be able to collect what you put in.

Oh, if I live into my 90's, it could be a problem.

I suppose that my concern with the investment scheme is that it seems the possibility of fairly large fluctuation would make it very difficult to really plan for old age.

I'll be interested to see some details of the plan.

There are none.

Right now it's all talk.

I don't even know how people will touch it before 2006.

-Rudey

The issue really comes down two issues:
1) paying for a transition
2) demagogues on the left

Any rational and intelligent person will realize that the private sector can do a far better job at providing retirement investment plans than the federal government.

As far as the safety of investing the money, most people are basivally financial idiots. Limiting the investments to quality indexes will provide an extremely safe investment that will provide better yields than Social Security could ever do.

With a clear path to privatizing Social Security, the issue of the transition has to be addressed. It will be very expensive. Who will pay for this?

Then there are the demagogues. People opposing Social Security privatization will not engage in rational discourse. They will fearmonger the issue.

I want to see Social Security privatized, but the 1-2 punch of paying for the transistion, and the American illiberal left may be just too much to advance the issue.

ETA that professor really didn't say anything. He just said that there is a problem, that it has to be addressed, and then refused to mention any potential solutions that he supports. Not much of an opinion.

Sorry, I don't think anything is that easy to quantify.

As Rudey says, there are no details and no plan yet.

For one instance, as you partially allude to above, if the younger folks stop paying part of their Social Security taxes and invest them, who makes up the difference as we baby boomers continue to draw our monthly checks?

This one is going to be complicated.

That's what I meant by "paying for a transition."

Socialism doesn't work
 

I'm posting a Motley Fool article on the 7 Myths of SS. I like their thoughts.

The old prof has bought the "govt. knows best" and "I'm from the govt., and I'm here to help".

Bush want people to take care of themselves and the key word is private. 70 years of socialism (since FDR) have proven that socialism is not the way to go.

For solid investing and economic info, checkout Motley Fool.

Which is what I meant by "you partially allude to." Complicated may be an understatement.

ETA:

"70 years of socialism (since FDR) have proven that socialism is not the way to go."

Give it a rest, Hoosier. We aren't anywhere close to Socialism as even some of our great democratic allies are. That's not even a constructive comment -- pure rhetoric.

The Whole Problem That The BOOFERs in DC so dont mention is the fact that The Main Reason for S S down fall is because that They Have Been Raping the SS Funds for Years and placing it ($) in another General Fund!

Ever Hear AnyThing about that?:mad:

The Stock Market and Mutual Funds and many other Investment Groups dont know a damn thing More than People Who play the market and watch it them selves.

I made more when I did My own damn investing than some Putchz who said He knew more! :p

Leave SS alone, Keep Govt. Sweepers out of it.

Bush is Full of Shit on this one. If I want Bush, I will go to the store and Buy The Damn Canned Beans!!