Re: Privatizing SS will destroy SS

Rita wrote:
( previous post snipped-follow thread )

What will you do with those who fail?


That's the question.

And Connie, bless her Libertarian heart, has no answer, beyond the 'let them eat cake,' aka, the Marie Antoinette response, if she answers you at all. After all, she has a history of projecting the attitude, "I said it, I believe it, and that's that,' ignoring anything which causes her beliefs to go into dilemma. Jeff at least grants them welfare, but he forgets that one of the reasons Social Security was enacted, was as an alternative to welfare, since welfare is far more expensive than Social Security anyway.

Right now if people at age 65 are not receviing

Social Security income up to a certain amount -- around $600 a month,
roughly, and have assets of other kinds under $2,000, they receive
income of up to that amount plus Medicaid, from the SSI fund which is
financed by taxpayers. Since contributions to Social Security are
obligatory for most employed persons, and since people do receive
income based on earnings and length of employment, SSI does not
go to a large percentage of retirees. However, if contributions to
Social Security were up to the individual to invest, I expect we would
see quite a different picture. Some would benefit if they were
extremely canny investors over the years, others would lose their
investments.

While you are correct with your initial generalization, you are incorrect in your assertion about Social Security not going to a large percentage of retirees. Many public pension systems have 'opted out,' as did the U.S. Government for its public service employees at one time, since those people receive defined benefit plans. If your assertion includes that group, you might be technically correct, but the rational used is that these individuals have a retirement plan and therefore, do not require the 'safety net' that Social Security provides. To my knowledge, virtually everyone in this country has some kind of income subject to Social Security taxes, and therefore, receives it, on qualification of the necessary 40 quarters of work, which virtually all achieve. Unless I misread you, or there was some typo.


You did misread me, but perhaps I was not clear. What I meant was
that most people receive enough in Social Security retirement payments
so they don't qualify for SSI, which is given to make up the
difference between a Social Security payment that falls short of the
SSI payment of around $600 a month. For example, if you worked
enough only to earn $300 a month in Social Security, SSI makes up
the difference up to the limit of about $600 a month. But SSI
recipients are just a small percentage of all retirees -- most receive
at least $600 a month in Social Security and of course many receive
much more.

Your clarification is accepted, and I agree.

However, if people lost their investments through risky investing
this number would rise dramatically. I just wanted to point out to
Connie, who probably will pay no attention, that under her scheme
people who invested unwisely would hurt all of us.

As I asserted previously, Connie uses the Marie Antoinette response, and then simply ignores further discussion, which might cause her to question her libertarian dogma. Most frustrating, to discuss something with someone who adopts the position, 'I said it, I believe it, and that's that.' Closed mind if there ever was one. However, I must admit, is IS a very good ego saving device, for it prevents her from having the conflicts which a critical evaluation of her beliefs would produce. And I agree that if the only plan open to people was private investment, there would be a far larger pool of people who screwed up.

Regarding investment, only the suspicious libertarians and sundry reactionaries believe that they, with their meager resources, can do better than a large trust with billions in assets and a myriad of very professional investment managers for each economic sector. Of course, they are entitled to be obdurate in their suspicious ignorance, as that is their right in our society. They believe that they can somehow, outperform those professionals. Of course, reasonable and rational people know that such is untrue, especially when one adds the additional benefit of a guaranteed rate of return on retirement, which they, of course, with their private plans, don't get.


Yes, I can't believe that choosing stocks willy nilly on brand name
recognition is a guaranteed strategy to successful investing, although
it seems Connie does.

But the travesty of the entire situation is that when she finds herself in a far worse circumstance than others who chose NOT to invest privately so they could 'control their own money,' instead, selecting the security of a defined benefit plan, she decries NOT her choices, but the fact that others chose differently and now find themselves better off. She had done that many, many times, with her blatantly anti-worker, anti-pension, anti-union posts. The simple fact is that these people are living proof that HER choice is NOT the best, so she adopts a position that since she doesn't have it, nobody should have it.
Hardly reasonable, and smacks only of jealously.

But that doesn't mean the FUND shouldn't invest, because the foundation for any effective retirement plan is money growth, and if you don't have it, you have a poorly funded retirement plan, which is EXACTLY what Social Security is now. However, you are quite correct in that the average individual doesn't have the investment acumen to beat the investment risk, and therefore, a group plan is FAR better for virtually all. Only the selfish and suspicious reactionaries think otherwise. And the proof is that after they have made those bad decisions to keep their own money and invest it themselves, the become quite jealous of those people who made different choices, and now find themselves far better off for it. Witness their hue and cry AGAINST defined benefit plans of those who have it, as compared to they who DON'T.

THAT jealousy is the result of doing it yourself. Yet these individuals don't see that. Pity. If they did, they might not be so quick to embrace a suggestion that creates more of the same. I guess misery wants company.


Since I don't believe most people are quite willing to allow total
paupers to starve, or at least I hope not, the investment industry
would be the big gainer from allowing people to invest in anything
at all and take that big, big risk of losing it. Certainly not the
taxpayers.

Of course, the reactionaries never considered those consequences. And reactionaries don't care if people starve. Their attitude is 'tough.'


Yes, and that is shocking.

Indeed.
.

Loading