Tangent Topic From "Convince Me, Please"

[RandomPhantom700]

Another thing Bush is doing, is trying to get social security privatized. I, for one, think this is an excellent idea. If you could put the money you pay into social security into a RothIRA, you would be a multimillionare when you retire. This would mean you would not have to rely on the government in your golden years. Let's see... depending on the government in retirement VS not relying on the government in retirement. Is there really any competition between those two?

With respect to Kaith Rustaz' request that the "Convince me, please" thread stay argument-free, I'll take this issue here.

I don't know whta RothIRA is, but I'm going to assume, from what you've said, that it's a private investment account of some sorts. Now, call me ignorant, but wouldn't privatizing social security essentially be doing away with it? The first word in the phrase is, after all, SOCIAL. The entire point to social security is so that retired people don't get left out to dry financially; allowing people to take their social security taxes and keep them all for themselves would mean that however many people end up relying on social security when they get old and retire would be left out in the cold.

To quote George Carlin, "I don't know how to end this, so I will take a bow". :asian:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Personally, I have a problem with the existing Social Security system. A few, actually.

1- It's too easy for our 'elected leaders' to dip into it to fund their little projects. I've heard in the past from some very reliable sources that the majority of the cash in teh SS system exists only in computer memory, and that it needs us to put our cash in now, so they can make next weeks payments. A private system will put -our- money outside the reach of greedy polititans.

2- By allowing people to work with retirement planners, they have a better chance of having more money to live on in their old age. SS is a conservative fund, paying a sure but minimal return. Most financial planners agree that it is not the best ROI.

3- Depending on only SS for your retirement is foolish, and it was -never- meant to be a sole means of subsistance. Savings, pension, and alternative retirement planning are the 3 main sources. SS, and govt. programs (heap, food stamps, senior discounts) are only intended to help, not be sole source of support.

4- The idea of privatizing the SS funds wouldn't mean you get to have the cash and they trust you to invest it. It would be in a manditory fund of your choosing, under similar restrictions as the existing SS system, just not run by the government. I expect there to be checks and balances in the system as well to keep people from 'dipping' into it early.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Do try and remember, won't you, that this guy calling for the privitization of social security--which would mean turning that money over to Wall Street and its accountants--is the same guy who presided over Enron, endless accounting scandals, and all the rest of this crap.

I guess I'm just a cynical guy, but somehow I have very little faith in trusting the likes of Bush and his cronies to protect the retiremeants of American workers. I have a great deal of faith, however, in their sucking as much out of the whole process as they possibly can.

The fact of the matter is that most Americans don't make enough, or have access to the resources necessary, to fund their retirements with various investments. Yuppies and the wealthy will do fine--everybody else, well, the basic idea is, screw 'em.

 

[michaeledward]

Certainly, the Social Security program will need to be fixed in some way, shape or form in the next few years, or it is going to implode on itself because of the burdens the Baby-Boom generation will place on it.

The challenge we would face, if all of the SS program was privatized, is what happens to those people who do not plan accordingly? do not contribute regularly into a self-directed retirement plan? place all their retirement money into a company like 'Enron', which self-destructs? And then, this individual is 68 years old, and all his retirement money has been flushed down the ledger sheet by Kenny Boy Lay?

Do we as a society let that person starve? Live in a cardboard box on the street? Not get Medicines? or work as a Wal-Mart greeter until he is 83?

Oops! Too Bad ... you trusted us, and we screwed you.

 

[deadhand31]

When I brought up the example of the RothIRA, it was simply to suggest that perhaps alternative means could generate a better system. Of course it's meant for everyone to contribute, but if the government can dip into it, it makes it harder for those who need it to get a fair cut. If we privatize it, thus not making it funds that the government can freely use, then already we have increased the funds that we are able to use for those who need it. If we also can get a system that generates a greater deal of interest over time, then we can have a system that will also be able to provide better for those who have put into it, and those who are on it.

On a side note, a RothIRA is an individual retirement account. It's somewhat more stable than a 401k. A few reasons for this; A) The value of the investment is in no way tied to stocks, which can go up and down. B) You pay taxes on it now, and get the money and interest back tax-free when it comes time to cash in. In a 401k you pay the taxes when you take it out, which, in many cases, can cost you quite a bit. C) It's FDIC insured, so if the institution goes bust, you get your money back.

 

[deadhand31]

The challenge we would face, if all of the SS program was privatized, is what happens to those people who do not plan accordingly? do not contribute regularly into a self-directed retirement plan? place all their retirement money into a company like 'Enron', which self-destructs? And then, this individual is 68 years old, and all his retirement money has been flushed down the ledger sheet by Kenny Boy Lay?

One of the main problems with Enron's retirement plan was that their 401k depended over 90% on their own stock. When you put money into a retirement plan that involves the stockmarket, like a 401k, you run the risk of losing money invested by the time you retire, while still having to pay a good deal of taxes when you take it out. By no means would I endorse a retirement plan involved in the stock market.

 

[Cryozombie]

The thing about Social Security is this...

I took care of my father in his declining years... that included putting his social security checks in the bank and paying his bills...

That Whopping 300 dollar a month check, did NOT stop him from having to work at Wal-mart practically right up to his death.

Is it worth the amount we lose in pay every paycheck down the road? Having seen it firsthand, I would state:

"No Clearly Not."

 

[sma_book]

On a side note, a RothIRA is an individual retirement account. C) It's FDIC insured, so if the institution goes bust, you get your money back.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Roth IRA's are not FDIC insured. Certain vehicles that you may have in your ROTH IRA might be FDIC insured, but those investments are usually earning between 1 and 2% interest, which, even with the tax free benefits of a ROTH will not keep up with inflation.

 

[7starmantis]

I guess I'm just a cynical guy, but somehow I have very little faith in trusting the likes of Bush and his cronies to protect the retiremeants of American workers. I have a great deal of faith, however, in their sucking as much out of the whole process as they possibly can.

Not saying your wrong, or I disagree, but do you really have faith in the likes of Kerry and his cronies to protect the retiremeants of American workers?

7sm

 

[deadhand31]

I have to agree with 7star. Kerry DID vote to increase the tax on social security benefits. Of course, Kerry pretty much voted for every tax increase that came his way, and against any tax cut that came his way.

 

[qizmoduis]

I have to agree with 7star. Kerry DID vote to increase the tax on social security benefits. Of course, Kerry pretty much voted for every tax increase that came his way, and against any tax cut that came his way.

Right-wing propaganda.

See http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=247 for the truth.

 

[michaeledward]

Right-wing propaganda.

See http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=247 for the truth.

Doesn't deadhand31 do a wonderful job 'Parrotting' Sean Hannity?

 

[Gary Crawford]

The problem with SS,as I understand it.is it has never been what it was suppost to be from the beginning,A seperate fund.Politicians(on both sides) have thrown around the term"Social Security Trust Fund",which has never existed.If it had existed from the beginning,we wouldn't have the inpending crisis we are facing now because there would be a large surplus of funds.When our leaders work out (or not work out) a budget,they budget SS's expected payouts while all incomming payments simply go into the general fund.This problem should have been taken care of a long time ago.The reason it hasn't is that SS is political cryptonite.Partial privatisation-sounds like a good idea and is theoretically sound,but the extremely remote possibility of a rapid decline in the stock market will probably keep that from ever happening.The good thing is that the idea is on the table,thus producing discussion and possibility of a better idea being suggested.Whatever we do with SS,we need to take the money out of the hands of politicians who will always spend it.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

An imaginary conversation by Tom Tomorrow, taken from Bushwatch.com:


Biff: I'd consider voting for John Kerry---But I just don't know if I trust him to lead the war on terror !

Betty: Are your worried that he might cynically exploit the threat of terrorism to justify the invasion of a country which actually poses no threat--diverting our resources and giving the real terrorists time to regroup? Or are you concerned that the country in question could become a breeding ground for new terrorists as a result of his incompetent leadership--leaving us more vulnerable than before? Or are you just afraid that in the middle of all this, we'd be so insanely irresponsible as to run up record deficits in order to finance a tax cut for the wealthiest one percent of the country?

What is it, Biff? What is it about Kerry that troubles you so?

Biff: He looks French. And there's the flip-flopping. And stuff.

Betty: I'm filled with confidence, knowing that this election will be decided by voters like you.

Christine: Like Betty, I have little confidence in the Biffs of our country.

Jerry: The question is, how many are there? To read the mainstream media, they may make up a majority. Couple a Bush-backing corporate media with a poorly educated citizenry that trusts them, plus the Bush corporate propaganda machine second to none cranking out twice as many ads as the opposition and a populace brought up on slick marketing and immediate gratification, not to mention fradulent voting practices and technology, and you have a recipe for the death of meaningful democracy.


Regards,


Steve

 

[deadhand31]

Oh, I'm sorry, 43 out of the 98 votes wouldn't increase taxes. However, subtract 43 from 98, and you'll get 55 votes that WOULD have increased taxes. Not to mention opposing tax credits for small business to provide health care, not to mention also voting against increased child tax credits, and a 50 cent a gallon gas tax. Sure, that gas tax may have been when gas was around 1.16 a gallon, but if that had passed, we'd now be paying around $2.50 a gallon.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Not that I expect reality to have the slightest effect here, but you might wanna look at:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106119

in regards to this pack of lies about kerry's voting record.

 

[deadhand31]

Let's take a look at that site, shall we? Hmm...

–Child Tax Credit: The ad further claims that Kerry voted 18 times for "higher taxes on middle class parents." All these were votes against Republican proposals for granting tax credits for families with children, going back to 1994, and many were votes against broad Republican tax packages that included expanded child credits as one element. Strictly speaking, those weren't votes to raise taxes as the ad implies, but votes to keep taxes unchanged. Now, Kerry says he'd preserve the child tax credits currently on the books.

The ad never really said that it was a tax increase. However, it was to deny tax relief to parents. He wants to keep the tax credit for children the same, which really doesn't do much if it doesn't get adjusted for inflation.

–Gasoline Tax: The ad claims that Kerry voted to "raise gas taxes on the middle class 10 times," which is false. As we've noted before, five of those votes were on the 1993 Clinton package, which resulted in a 4.3-cent per gallon increase in the federal gasoline tax. And five of the votes were not to raise the tax, as the ad falsely claims, but were against Republican attempts to cut the gasoline tax. Four were against repeal of Clinton's 4.3-cent tax after it had gone into effect. The last vote was against temporarily suspending the 18.4-cent federal gasoline tax entirely for 150 days during a period of spiking gasoline prices in 2000.

The Bush ad also recycles once again the statement that Kerry "supported a 50 cent a gallon gas tax increase," which (as we've noted before) hasn't been true for a decade. Kerry once told newspaper interviewers that he deserved credit as a deficit hawk for supporting such an increase, but the fact is he had passed up a chance to cosponsor a Senate bill that would have done that, never voted for such an increase, and says he opposes such an increase now.

Let's see.. as it says, YES, he DID vote several times for the Clinton gas take increase. He also didn't vote to repeal it, and also didn't vote to temporarily suspend it while there was a large price hike. Let's also read the fine print in the second paragraph: "hasn't been true for over a decade". I can agree with that statement. However, before that "Decade" began, he DID vote for it. So he didn't cosponsor another bill to do that again, and now he opposes what he voted for before.

–Social Security: It's true as the ad states that Kerry voted to increase taxes on Social Security benefits, an increase included in the 1993 deficit-cutting package. That increased tax goes to help pay for Medicare, and is paid only by those making $44,000 a year or more for a married couple, falling on roughly the highest-earning 18% of Social Security recipients.

Interesting point. Thanks for pointing to a source that points this out. I repeal my earlier words regarding the taxing social security statement. (Yes, I can admit when I was ill-informed)

–Middle Class:Generally this ad attempts to discredit Kerry's promise not to raise taxes on the "middle class," but in fact many of the votes cited by the Bush campaign are votes to do pretty much what he promises to do if elected: raise taxes on upper-income taxpayers. The votes on the fiscal '96 budget are a good example, as the increases would have fallen on those making over $140,000 a year.Currently, Kerry promises to repeal the Bush cuts only for those making over $200,000 a year.

Now, I can understand how one might think that the rich getting the tax breaks is not good. I also remember one person saying that the rich don't want to pay their "fair share" of taxes. Well, like I've said before, the top 2% pay for more than HALF of the country's taxes. MORE THAN HALF. FROM 2%. So, let me understand this.... despite the fact that the rich pay for more than half of every government service you use in your daily life, they aren't paying their fair share? Tell ya what. Cut the garbagemen by 50%. Cut the police by 50%. Cut the public works, the courts, and the public schools by 50%. That's what it would be like if the rich weren't paying the taxes they do now. Would you like the rest of that 50% put on you? I don't think so. Besides, who makes the decisions in the big businesses? The rich. Who has to make the decision to expand? The rich. Who have to make decisions that effect the lives of their employees? That's right. The people in the boardrooms. If a small business starts taking off, and the owner makes more than 200k a year, he's going to find the tax relief he started off with taken away. That means less money to pay employees, and less money to expand. The more money you take away from successful businesses, the less they have for their workers and benefits. Think about it.

 

[deadhand31]

That said, I feel this thread has started drifting off-topic. I believe it's meant to discuss whether privatizing social security can be a good thing. I'm getting vaklempt. Talk amongst yourselves.