1) Wiping out social security -
a) What would happen if someone that didn't save any money at all for retirement because they lived to the fullest extent of their monetary means throughout their life. They would be 100% broke at retirement and we would continue to support them through welfare or some other government system. So saying to Americans "Everyone be good and save x% of your pay for retirement" is an irresponsible thought and just wouldn't happen. No matter what if they can't support themselves we are going to end up paying for it.
b) What if someone did put away the x% of their pay like a good little american and when they reached retirement age they had their money foolishly invested very aggresively and all in one company. If that company has a falling out that person is left out in the cold and again we will be supporting them. With the governement setting limits on our investment choices our risk should be less. Some people only see dollar signs and don't think about the risk.
2) People won't earn any extra money through conservative investing and the poor won't be fairly represented -
Right now if you pay into social security all of your life and retire at 65 you will get full benifits. If you die at 70 what happens to the rest of the money you're owed. Most of the time it goes to pay for someone else and your family doesn't see a penny, I think that is very wrong. The definite advantage of privitization would be you know
have actual savings that you can pass on to your heirs. The money made may be cut into by fees and administrative costs but the value of having actual physical money would be hugely important to the less fortunate. Maybe we can actually help the lower class have some sort of real world chance instead of just taking care of them and never letting them stand on their own two feet.
Right now the middle class and upper class leave money to their families the poor never have that opportunity and I see this finally being a way for them to have a nest egg. It may not be huge but it's better than nothing and it's theirs. Nothing is a better motivator than ownership.
I dont like the idea of supporting anyone who will not work themselves. Being unable to, sure. I have no problem with people who are needful of welfare to receive it.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when thumper11 wrote:
What would happen if someone that didn't save any money at all for retirement because they lived to the fullest extent of their monetary means throughout their life.
Sucks to be you. It's not the place of government to prevent people from stupidly mismanaging their finances.
quote:
They would be 100% broke at retirement and we would continue to support them through welfare or some other government system.
Which is why I'm also opposed to welfare programs. If you lose at the game of life, you lose at the game of life and that's that. It's not the place of government to prevent this, a government is not a parent figure that exists solely to wipe your ass for you when you make mistakes. Because we are a civilized nation, however, the government, acting as the collective will of the population, will graciously provide you with accomodations despite your failure. Currently those accomodations are monitary and being distributed to far too many people. This incurs undue cost on the population (costs which in large part contribute to the hardships that incurred them)and needs to end.
quote:
What if someone did put away the x% of their pay like a good little american and when they reached retirement age they had their money foolishly invested very aggresively and all in one company.
Sucks to be you.
People need to realize there are consequences for their actions in this world, and that the people who work hard to make their own living (taxpayers) won't always be there to fix their problems for them.
You mis-manage your money, you reap the consequences. If you don't save for retirement, you'd better not retire.
quote:
Reynar had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Sorry Thumper, but it's not my job as a taxpayer to support every person who can't properly manage their money.People need to realize there are consequences for their actions in this world, and that the people who work hard to make their own living (taxpayers) won't always be there to fix their problems for them.
You mis-manage your money, you reap the consequences. If you don't save for retirement, you'd better not retire.
So you are just going to let these people too old to work with no money starve to death? The foodstamp money will have to come from somewhere, and I belive that's his point. we'll still have to pay for these people one way or another.
And as for pyschos who want to let them starve to death, survival will kick and the people without food will do what they must to survive. If they land in jail you'll still have to pay for them. SO unless you are insane and go logan's run, eliminating social security entirely won't really do any good.
And we will never get rid of wellfare entirely like you are suggesting, so saying that we won't be paying for people if they can't afford to support themselves isn't realistic.
edit2: Plus there's the people who just had a bad string of luck, like invested in a power company becuase everyone will always need electrisity. or a drug company because there will always be sick people. diadem fucked around with this message on 01-13-2005 at 01:00 PM.
quote:
diadem wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
So you are just going to let these people too old to work with no money starve to death?
No, but they have no right to live a normal life on state funding either. Foodstamps and handouts do precisely that. No more should be invested in social programs to support such people than is nesscessary to provide them with a life that is only prefereable to starvation or a life on the streets.
Being a recipient of social aide should be an extremely undesirable position. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 01-13-2005 at 01:02 PM.
Either we keep Social Security much like it is, or we get rid of it. If we keep it as it is, they should be honest and explain to the 20-35ish generation that they're paying taxes into a system to keep their parents and grandparents afloat, and that they will also have to worry about their own retirement.
West Wing once said, "According to the most recent polls, more young people think they will see UFO's than believe they will receive Social Security." I think they made that up, but it certainly represents my beliefs truly.
quote:
Nobody really understood why thumper11 wrote:
BTW, I am also against Welfare as it stans today, help is one thing laziness is another, but unfortuanely our government is not going to let people just starve and die without helping them. That is the government not me. I just feel we should face the facts that the government is going to continue to help people and try to base our reforms around that model.
I wouldn't want the government to stop helping people, but the fact is that welfare handouts do not help people, a handout hurts most recipients tremendously by instilling complacency and failing to provide any method by which a person can remove themselves from that situation.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when diadem said:
[QB]So you are just going to let these people too old to work with no money starve to death? The foodstamp money will have to come from somewhere, and I belive that's his point. we'll still have to pay for these people one way or another.
What sillyness, I never said anything like that.
But if you want to go down the road of extremes; thousands starve to death everyday in other countries, is it my (and your) duty to give everything we make to try and save everyone in world?
Of course not.
Silly isn't it? Now that we have that outta the way...I was responding to Thumper because he was giving 'what ifs' for people who were not managing their money properly.
If someone isn't smart enough to plan for their own retirement, it's not MY responsibility to make sure they keep a certain quality of life. If someone poorly invests their money and they lose it, too bad, welcome to the world of consequences.
That's all I was saying.
quote:
Hireko still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
I'm with Karnaj on this one.Either we keep Social Security much like it is, or we get rid of it. If we keep it as it is, they should be honest and explain to the 20-35ish generation that they're paying taxes into a system to keep their parents and grandparents afloat, and that they will also have to worry about their own retirement.
A very good point. It might even give our generation the kick in the seat it needs to get off their asses and have 2.1 kids per couple, when they realize that the younger generations are going to be paying their Social Security checks.
Of course, the Baby Bust, if it even is pending, won't really be felt for some time, so it'a not a really compelling reason to keep Social Security. At best, it's a perk.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Reynar obviously shouldn't have said:
What sillyness, I never said anything like that.But if you want to go down the road of extremes; thousands starve to death everyday in other countries, is it my (and your) duty to give everything we make to try and save everyone in world?
Of course not.
Silly isn't it? Now that we have that outta the way...I was responding to Thumper because he was giving 'what ifs' for people who were not managing their money properly.
If someone isn't smart enough to plan for their own retirement, it's not MY responsibility to make sure they keep a certain quality of life. If someone poorly invests their money and they lose it, too bad, welcome to the world of consequences.
That's all I was saying.
ah. i understand what you are saying.... his point was that in reality, with the current way things are set up, if social security is eliminated we will still have to pay for these people through other means.
"They would be 100% broke at retirement and we would continue to support them through welfare or some other government system"
