Should Social Security be eliminated entirely? - Page 5

revots33 · #41 06-26-2007, 12:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The problem with letting people have a choice to invest (poorly or not) is that the rest of us have to live with the consequences. If enough people invested part of their plan in higher risk and something in the future happens so that they get a lot less money than others then we are in the same boat that started this mess. Leaving savings options up to the people is a mistake. 95% of people lose in the options market - why? Aren't people good investors? No, the average Joe sucks at saving and planning for their future. Maybe you don't but most do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, by this logic no one should be able to decide anything for themselves because they might screw up. Should we also take out more taxes to put in a trust fund to guard against those who blow their paychecks at the track? How about people who can barely pay their rent but still go on a Caribbean Cruise because they "deserve it"?

It is a big difference between everyone chipping in to provide help to those in need (which I agree with), and forcing everyone to pay through the nose because of others' incompetence or stupidity.

mosdef · #42 06-26-2007, 01:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with letting people have a choice to invest (poorly or not) is that the rest of us have to live with the consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like we have to live with the consequences of having a system that requires siginificant contributions in and very limited benefit out? The existence of SS doesn't make the cost go away because it's "just" tax dollars. Nowhere in your argument is there any evidence that the current system is the best arrangement. You just keep saying over and over again that changing it will cause lots of problems without acknowledging the problems that exist now and can be improved upon.

[ QUOTE ]
If enough people invested part of their plan in higher risk and something in the future happens so that they get a lot less money than others then we are in the same boat that started this mess.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're not prepared to live with the consequences of risk then they can avoid the risk. Their inability to handle risk in no way should force me to be prevented from taking on risk that is better for me.

[ QUOTE ]
Leaving savings options up to the people is a mistake. 95% of people lose in the options market - why? Aren't people good investors? No, the average Joe sucks at saving and planning for their future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they're too stupid or because government officials tell them over and over again "Vote for me, I'll secure your future"? And, again, if they're willing to delegate their post-employment security (decades away) to a government with a 4 year period of accountability, why wouldn't they delegate it to an retirement planning specialist that wants their business all the way to retirement and faces competitive pressure to perform? How can that be worse?

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you don't but most do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So leave me alone if I don't need to be wrapped up in your insurance scheme.

[ QUOTE ]
It was asked why touching social security was the third rail. My point about history is this - most of the people that don't want social security touched lived through or had parents live through the Great Depression. They know first hand what it was like and do not want to repeat it. If you are young you can't appreciate that. It is common throughout history to have a solution to a problem work so well that they eventually forget what the problem was and then remove the fix. Then history repeats itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just an assertion about what will happen in the future with a side order of "you don't have the experience to understand so shut up". Thanks, but no thanks.

pokerbobo · #43 06-26-2007, 01:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with letting people have a choice to invest (poorly or not) is that the rest of us have to live with the consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like we have to live with the consequences of having a system that requires siginificant contributions in and very limited benefit out? The existence of SS doesn't make the cost go away because it's "just" tax dollars. Nowhere in your argument is there any evidence that the current system is the best arrangement. You just keep saying over and over again that changing it will cause lots of problems without acknowledging the problems that exist now and can be improved upon.

[ QUOTE ]
If enough people invested part of their plan in higher risk and something in the future happens so that they get a lot less money than others then we are in the same boat that started this mess.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're not prepared to live with the consequences of risk then they can avoid the risk. Their inability to handle risk in no way should force me to be prevented from taking on risk that is better for me.

[ QUOTE ]
Leaving savings options up to the people is a mistake. 95% of people lose in the options market - why? Aren't people good investors? No, the average Joe sucks at saving and planning for their future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they're too stupid or because government officials tell them over and over again "Vote for me, I'll secure your future"? And, again, if they're willing to delegate their post-employment security (decades away) to a government with a 4 year period of accountability, why wouldn't they delegate it to an retirement planning specialist that wants their business all the way to retirement and faces competitive pressure to perform? How can that be worse?

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you don't but most do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So leave me alone if I don't need to be wrapped up in your insurance scheme.

[ QUOTE ]
It was asked why touching social security was the third rail. My point about history is this - most of the people that don't want social security touched lived through or had parents live through the Great Depression. They know first hand what it was like and do not want to repeat it. If you are young you can't appreciate that. It is common throughout history to have a solution to a problem work so well that they eventually forget what the problem was and then remove the fix. Then history repeats itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just an assertion about what will happen in the future with a side order of "you don't have the experience to understand so shut up". Thanks, but no thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty well said....I will abstain from reply as this whole BS plan has gotten me a bit fired up. I hate Soc sec, it sucks major monkey balls.

adios · #44 06-26-2007, 01:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Mos,

The problem with letting people have a choice to invest (poorly or not) is that the rest of us have to live with the consequences. If enough people invested part of their plan in higher risk and something in the future happens so that they get a lot less money than others then we are in the same boat that started this mess. Leaving savings options up to the people is a mistake. 95% of people lose in the options market - why? Aren't people good investors? No, the average Joe sucks at saving and planning for their future. Maybe you don't but most do.

It was asked why touching social security was the third rail. My point about history is this - most of the people that don't want social security touched lived through or had parents live through the Great Depression. They know first hand what it was like and do not want to repeat it. If you are young you can't appreciate that. It is common throughout history to have a solution to a problem work so well that they eventually forget what the problem was and then remove the fix. Then history repeats itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Where's your data that states 95% of people lose in the options market. Warning, if 90+% of options expire worthless that doesn't necessarily mean that 90+% lose in the options market? Do you see why?

2. Let's look at IRAs for a moment, do you honestly believe that 95+% lose money in their IRA accounts? Speculating on options basically is not allowed in IRA accounts. Why on earth would you believe this kind of speculation be allowed in a self directed Social Security account?

3. Your argument that people suck at savings when government policy is to take this money from paychecks to provide some retirement income is illogical. The government is clearly taking money that people could be saving for themselves and spending it. That doesn't make your case that offering people of choice of where to invest some the money would be a disaster.

bocablkr · #45 06-26-2007, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is a big difference between everyone chipping in to provide help to those in need (which I agree with), and forcing everyone to pay through the nose because of others' incompetence or stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rev, you seem like an intelligent guy. How do you propose everyone will be forced to pay in to help those in need. How does that really differ from social security?

I think you and most people think they are paying a large amount of taxes for this. You do realize that if there was no social security tax then you would not be making what you are making now. Every employer pays knowing that their workers have to pay x amount in taxes.

For example, if you earn $50,000 and pay 10,000 in taxes you are living on 40,000. If there were no taxes do you think your employer would still be paying you 50,000? No, he would not. You would be earning closer to 40,000. Salaries are based on knowing that x amount goes to taxes. You can't say that you are earning this amount and that if you stopped paying taxes you would have all that extra money. You wouldn't have been earning so much in the first place if it wasn't for the salary pressure caused by those taxes. Speak to your boss - ask him if this it true.

Note: does not apply as much to those self employed.

mosdef · #46 06-26-2007, 01:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Rev, you seem like an intelligent guy. How do you propose everyone will be forced to pay in to help those in need. How does that really differ from social security?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think people need to be forced to help the needy? How do you think charities get money?

[ QUOTE ]
I think you and most people think they are paying a large amount of taxes for this. You do realize that if there was no social security tax then you would not be making what you are making now. Every employer pays knowing that their workers have to pay x amount in taxes.

For example, if you earn $50,000 and pay 10,000 in taxes you are living on 40,000. If there were no taxes do you think your employer would still be paying you 50,000? No, he would not. You would be earning closer to 40,000. Salaries are based on knowing that x amount goes to taxes. You can't say that you are earning this amount and that if you stopped paying taxes you would have all that extra money. You wouldn't have been earning so much in the first place if it wasn't for the salary pressure caused by those taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. What you are saying is that government services are free because the taxes that are taken away aren't "real". It should be obvious that this is not so.

adios · #47 06-26-2007, 01:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is a big difference between everyone chipping in to provide help to those in need (which I agree with), and forcing everyone to pay through the nose because of others' incompetence or stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rev, you seem like an intelligent guy. How do you propose everyone will be forced to pay in to help those in need. How does that really differ from social security?

I think you and most people think they are paying a large amount of taxes for this. You do realize that if there was no social security tax then you would not be making what you are making now. Every employer pays knowing that their workers have to pay x amount in taxes.

For example, if you earn $50,000 and pay 10,000 in taxes you are living on 40,000. If there were no taxes do you think your employer would still be paying you 50,000? No, he would not. You would be earning closer to 40,000. Salaries are based on knowing that x amount goes to taxes. You can't say that you are earning this amount and that if you stopped paying taxes you would have all that extra money. You wouldn't have been earning so much in the first place if it wasn't for the salary pressure caused by those taxes. Speak to your boss - ask him if this it true.

Note: does not apply as much to those self employed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's define people in need first and then have the government offer support just as they do now, hopefully to fewer people that are truly deserving (yeah I think there are some that are). Social Security is a tax. The idea that it's some sort of pool of savings is a sham.

bocablkr · #48 06-26-2007, 01:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1. Where's your data that states 95% of people lose in the options market. Warning, if 90+% of options expire worthless that doesn't necessarily mean that 90+% lose in the options market? Do you see why?

2. Let's look at IRAs for a moment, do you honestly believe that 95+% lose money in their IRA accounts? Speculating on options basically is not allowed in IRA accounts. Why on earth would you believe this kind of speculation be allowed in a self directed Social Security account?

3. Your argument that people suck at savings when government policy is to take this money from paychecks to provide some retirement income is illogical. The government is clearly taking money that people could be saving for themselves and spending it. That doesn't make your case that offering people of choice of where to invest some the money would be a disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Use google, the VAST majority of people playing options lose money.

2. Six years ago our company disolved their profit sharing plan and disbursed the funds to everyone. Almost every single one now has less money than they started with. Most got crushed in the stock market crash 2001.

3. You make no sense. If people suck at saving then how is the government giving them back their money to save logical. Most people can't save. They will spend any extra money. If you don't know this then further discussion is pointless.

bocablkr · #49 06-26-2007, 01:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rev, you seem like an intelligent guy. How do you propose everyone will be forced to pay in to help those in need. How does that really differ from social security?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think people need to be forced to help the needy? How do you think charities get money?

[ QUOTE ]
I think you and most people think they are paying a large amount of taxes for this. You do realize that if there was no social security tax then you would not be making what you are making now. Every employer pays knowing that their workers have to pay x amount in taxes.

For example, if you earn $50,000 and pay 10,000 in taxes you are living on 40,000. If there were no taxes do you think your employer would still be paying you 50,000? No, he would not. You would be earning closer to 40,000. Salaries are based on knowing that x amount goes to taxes. You can't say that you are earning this amount and that if you stopped paying taxes you would have all that extra money. You wouldn't have been earning so much in the first place if it wasn't for the salary pressure caused by those taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. What you are saying is that government services are free because the taxes that are taken away aren't "real". It should be obvious that this is not so.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think your salary would be the same in a world without taxes you are surely wrong. Have you asked your boss?

bocablkr · #50 06-26-2007, 01:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Let's define people in need first and then have the government offer support just as they do now, hopefully to fewer people that are truly deserving (yeah I think there are some that are). Social Security is a tax. The idea that it's some sort of pool of savings is a sham.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a safety net first and foremost. Savings plan is really a misnomer.

What you suggest was in place in the 1930's - it was not enough. All the charity in the world was not enough during the depression.