In this thread, we talk about the State of the Union Address

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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 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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

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).

[AGDee]

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.

[Drolefille]

^^ 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?

[Ghostwriter]

[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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

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.

[aggieAXO]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by aggieAXO

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!

[AnchorAlum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

Because having been once burned, they're too unintelligent to learn from their mistakes?

There are all sorts of the old fashioned sayings about this; things your grandmother said but went in one ear and out the other:

1. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
2. Once bitten, twice shy.
3. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him how to fish and he can feed himself forever.

And on and on.

Safety nets do wear out over time. Especially if they're over used.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AnchorAlum

Because having been once burned, they're too unintelligent to learn from their mistakes?

There are all sorts of the old fashioned sayings about this; things your grandmother said but went in one ear and out the other:

1. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
2. Once bitten, twice shy.
3. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him how to fish and he can feed himself forever.

And on and on.

Safety nets do wear out over time. Especially if they're over used.

Indeed, but advocating the removal of the safety net means that people fall to the ground. Then what? As others have said, you then need more social services to provide for those who 'fall' if they're to get back up on their feet again. GW's just trolling.

Also, my grandmother never said those things, FWIW.

[AGDee]

I think it's pretty telling that GW Bush talked about privatizing Social Security repeatedly while campaigning yet, once elected, even when he had a Republican Congress and Senate, it didn't happen. That makes me think they decided maybe it wasn't such a good idea.