Liberal = Anti-American?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm open to other ideas, I'm just not open to what I believe to be bad ideas. I don't have a problem with the concept of privatizing SS if it were made private as the program was being created. I do have a problem with the practicality of it at this point. The way it currently works is such that the younger generation pays into it so that the older generation can collect. What if we privatized SS tomorrow? What does that all mean? Can we implement the Galviston plan across the country? What will happen to my friends mom who is permanently disabled?

SS privatization crowd is all talk, no bark. Certainly no substance, just plain hate of "Socialist Security."

I'm not extreme, I'm just extremely opinionated and everything I say is reasoned and thought out though some might not like my methods or rational.

mecixo chile and australia (among others) managed to do it. you do like galveston did... let people opt out, and then they can put their SS money in a private account that guarantees 4-6% return per year (sometimes they make more than the guarantee). Those accounts are divided between multiple regulated regional banks and credit unions (which basically look at it like long term CDs) - that way there's no chance of one bank failure bankrupting a retirement class (and these things can be FDIC insured).

so that takes care of everyone opting out going forward. you leave those nearing retirement on the old system and gradually reduce america's tax burden as the old guys retire (and the opt out rate will be over 90%).

probelm solved - less taxes, no one gets forced out on the street, and the younger guys get actually interest on their very safe accounts, beating inflation and making it economically feasible to keep the idea of guaranteed retirement without bankrupting the nation.

SS and medicare are EASY problems - galveston and japan already solved them 30 years ago!!. why reinvent the wheel?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by That Guy

mecixo chile and australia (among others) managed to do it. you do like galveston did... let people opt out, and then they can put their SS money in a private account that guarantees 4-6% return per year (sometimes they make more than the guarantee). Those accounts are divided between multiple regulated regional banks and credit unions (which basically look at it like long term CDs) - that way there's no chance of one bank failure bankrupting a retirement class (and these things can be FDIC insured).

so that takes care of everyone opting out going forward. you leave those nearing retirement on the old system and gradually reduce america's tax burden as the old guys retire (and the opt out rate will be over 90%).

probelm solved - less taxes, no one gets forced out on the street, and the younger guys get actually interest on their very safe accounts, beating inflation and making it economically feasible to keep the idea of guaranteed retirement without bankrupting the nation.

SS and medicare are EASY problems - galveston and japan already solved them 30 years ago!!. why reinvent the wheel?

I am missing something here...if I am 63 and two years away from retirement can I opt-out and what does opting-out mean? What if I am 50 years old? What exactly are my choices? What will happen to the money I contributed in the past ~30 years? I mean that money is long gone and all the spiffy 20-30 year olds are putting their money in private accounts. Are we perhaps going to need to bail out people of a certain age?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

I am missing something here...if I am 63 and two years away from retirement can I opt-out and what does opting-out mean? What if I am 50 years old? What exactly are my choices? What will happen to the money I contributed in the past ~30 years? I mean that money is long gone and all the spiffy 20-30 year olds are putting their money in private accounts. Are we perhaps going to need to bail out people of a certain age?

Well privatising SS would have to come in phases. You have older people who have contributed into the system so they would receive their benifits they are due. People who are younger and have contributed to SS would have those accounts frozen and then could also have their private accounts. When they retire they would collect from SS (at the rate they paid up to) and could also collect from what they have put into their private accounts. The whole problem is that the money put into SS has been taken out to pay for other stuff not related to SS. If any person selling private funds did anything like this they would be in jail. So the problem is that the funds that should be in SS are no longer there and thats the reason for the problems in SS to start with. What we are doing now is bailing out SS by using current payments to SS to pay current obligations. This is just totaly backward in any type of financial plaining. It should be that my current payments into SS would be collecting interest and would support me when I retire thus making the programe self supporting to say. The problems in SS is a great example of what happens when our politicians get their hands on our money and its been going on way to long by both parties.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by saden1

I am missing something here...if I am 63 and two years away from retirement can I opt-out and what does opting-out mean? What if I am 50 years old? What exactly are my choices? What will happen to the money I contributed in the past ~30 years? I mean that money is long gone and all the spiffy 20-30 year olds are putting their money in private accounts. Are we perhaps going to need to bail out people of a certain age?

i addressed that in my last post. and firstdown explains it too, but basically the old timers keep their benefits and as less people are due government benefits, the SS tax burden goes away, solving 1 of the 2 insanely out of line tax burdens.

retirement planning and medical coverage aren't bad ideas, but they've been implemented poorly and managed terribly.