Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Transitioning To Privatized Gov't Programs

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:09:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How will the transition to privatized Social Security pan out? Wouldn't this be a rather difficult and unsecure transition?

You're basically taking a big lump sum of our money and just saying "here you go mister private entity. I hope you take good care of all this money!" What is actually going to happen to our Social Security money and how can we be sure that this private entity can be trusted?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:11:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's no big lump of Social Security money to be privatized, it's all been spent already. Everyone who's paid taxes into it lost all their money, and many will simply get nothing when the program collapses.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:12:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 5:09:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
You're basically taking a big lump sum of our money and just saying "here you go mister private entity. I hope you take good care of all this money!" What is actually going to happen to our Social Security money and how can we be sure that this private entity can be trusted?

That's not what most people who want to privatize social security have in mind. Basically, it would be grandfathered out. People who are currently owed SS benefits would receive them, but the upcoming generation would be able to opt out and invest their money however they want.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:15:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 5:11:04 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
There's no big lump of Social Security money to be privatized, it's all been spent already. Everyone who's paid taxes into it lost all their money, and many will simply get nothing when the program collapses.

Ya people are mad at the politicians who are trying to fix social security, but no one gets mad at the government who has, for years, been taking money from the social security fund. I don't know where they expect this money, which the government has already borrowed and spent, to come from.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:15:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Or if you meant future taxes going to private companies, rather than taxes already paid: just whoever you want. Where you invest your money will be up to you, or up to whoever you choose to trust that investment to. (that is, unless there's a version of "privatization" where the government gets to choose where the money is invested. Then it'll just go to the friends of whoever is in power).
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:18:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Oh, ok. I hadn't realized they spent all our SS money. In that case, I'd prefer a private entity that would be held responsible for handling the money properly.

And if this privatization of SS is for the next generation, and the current SS money for this generation has been spent, what's gonna happen? They're just not getting their SS or is the Federal Reserve going to just make some more fiat and use that?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:21:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 5:18:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Oh, ok. I hadn't realized they spent all our SS money. In that case, I'd prefer a private entity that would be held responsible for handling the money properly.

And if this privatization of SS is for the next generation, and the current SS money for this generation has been spent, what's gonna happen? They're just not getting their SS or is the Federal Reserve going to just make some more fiat and use that?

I think they'll probably end up seizing everyone's retirement accounts--for your own protection from the evil private sector, of course. So that everyone's money is safe, they'll have to take control of it and then redistribute the funds fairly.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:22:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 5:18:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
And if this privatization of SS is for the next generation, and the current SS money for this generation has been spent, what's gonna happen? They're just not getting their SS or is the Federal Reserve going to just make some more fiat and use that?

That will be part of it. It's also likely that they'll raise the retirement age, reduce benefits, and stop making payments to rich people who don't need it, ie., the people who paid the most into it.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:29:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 5:21:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:18:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Oh, ok. I hadn't realized they spent all our SS money. In that case, I'd prefer a private entity that would be held responsible for handling the money properly.

And if this privatization of SS is for the next generation, and the current SS money for this generation has been spent, what's gonna happen? They're just not getting their SS or is the Federal Reserve going to just make some more fiat and use that?

I think they'll probably end up seizing everyone's retirement accounts--for your own protection from the evil private sector, of course. So that everyone's money is safe, they'll have to take control of it and then redistribute the funds fairly.

Some times I can't tell if you're joking or not.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:32:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 5:29:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:21:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:18:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Oh, ok. I hadn't realized they spent all our SS money. In that case, I'd prefer a private entity that would be held responsible for handling the money properly.

And if this privatization of SS is for the next generation, and the current SS money for this generation has been spent, what's gonna happen? They're just not getting their SS or is the Federal Reserve going to just make some more fiat and use that?

I think they'll probably end up seizing everyone's retirement accounts--for your own protection from the evil private sector, of course. So that everyone's money is safe, they'll have to take control of it and then redistribute the funds fairly.

Some times I can't tell if you're joking or not.

You don't think that's a plausible scenario? They certainly don't seem to be planning on fixing the balancing the budget in a conventional way any time soon, nor do they have a problem with taking people's money.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:40:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 5:09:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How will the transition to privatized Social Security pan out? Wouldn't this be a rather difficult and unsecure transition?:

What do smart people do?

1. They plan ahead for retirement.

2. They set up 401k's, IRA's, invest in stocks, bonds, etc to create for themselves their own retirement.

3. They don't rely on the government to take care of them with their paltry checks.

Did it ever occur to you why 401k's are even in existence? It's because Social Security is a joke. You can't even live off of the funds, and by the time you reach the age draw from it, the Baby Boomers will have depleted the reserves. You will never see the money that the government took from you that was set aside for you.

The number of senior citizens, for the first time in US history, is almost greater than the amount of children born. Why?

1. Seniors are dying at a later age thanks to healthier living and improving medical care.

2. People are having less and less children. The average is 1 child per home. Compare that to the baby boom generation which averaged 3-4 per household.

There won't be a large enough workforce in the future to sustain the amount of people drawing from it.

Sooooo.... Save for your retirement, and do not rely on the government. No one gives more of a sh*t about Geo, than Geo. So take care of Geo.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:46:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 5:32:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:29:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:21:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:18:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Oh, ok. I hadn't realized they spent all our SS money. In that case, I'd prefer a private entity that would be held responsible for handling the money properly.

And if this privatization of SS is for the next generation, and the current SS money for this generation has been spent, what's gonna happen? They're just not getting their SS or is the Federal Reserve going to just make some more fiat and use that?

I think they'll probably end up seizing everyone's retirement accounts--for your own protection from the evil private sector, of course. So that everyone's money is safe, they'll have to take control of it and then redistribute the funds fairly.

Some times I can't tell if you're joking or not.

You don't think that's a plausible scenario? They certainly don't seem to be planning on fixing the balancing the budget in a conventional way any time soon, nor do they have a problem with taking people's money.

Not really. If anything they are going to do some of the following.
1) raise the age restrictions
2) limit benefit amounts
3) remove the cap on income that can be taxed
4) raise the tax rate itself
5) put in spending limits (you can only use the money to buy XYZ, not ABC)
6) Say that those with over X dollars qualify for only partial payments (or no payments over Z amount)
7) raise the inheritance tax, and have a portion of it go to SS (that is probably the most extreme that I can see happening with our current breed of politicans).

If anyone tried anything more extreme (and even many of these) they would get kicked out of office so fast and replaced with someone that would undo those and try a different approach.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:48:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That's not what most people who want to privatize social security have in mind. Basically, it would be grandfathered out. People who are currently owed SS benefits would receive them, but the upcoming generation would be able to opt out and invest their money however they want.:

When SSI first started, FDR promised that it was not a mandatory system. Anyone who wanted in the program could opt in. Once they realized that not enough people were funding it, they completely reneged on the promise and made it a compulsory tax, whether you, I, or anyone likes it. As it stands now, it's a legal Ponzi scheme.

So I am all in favor of it going back to the way it was intended.... optional....
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:49:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 5:40:52 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:09:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How will the transition to privatized Social Security pan out? Wouldn't this be a rather difficult and unsecure transition?:

What do smart people do?

1. They plan ahead for retirement.

2. They set up 401k's, IRA's, invest in stocks, bonds, etc to create for themselves their own retirement.

3. They don't rely on the government to take care of them with their paltry checks.

Did it ever occur to you why 401k's are even in existence? It's because Social Security is a joke. You can't even live off of the funds, and by the time you reach the age draw from it, the Baby Boomers will have depleted the reserves. You will never see the money that the government took from you that was set aside for you.

The number of senior citizens, for the first time in US history, is almost greater than the amount of children born. Why?

1. Seniors are dying at a later age thanks to healthier living and improving medical care.

2. People are having less and less children. The average is 1 child per home. Compare that to the baby boom generation which averaged 3-4 per household.

There won't be a large enough workforce in the future to sustain the amount of people drawing from it.

Sooooo.... Save for your retirement, and do not rely on the government. No one gives more of a sh*t about Geo, than Geo. So take care of Geo.

Yes, what you say is true, however that doesn't directly address the issue. The Social Security money is still OUR money and I wanted to know how we will be guaranteed that we get that money back.

But you are correct, those other alternatives you listed would be wise to take.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:50:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 5:46:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:32:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:29:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:21:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:18:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Oh, ok. I hadn't realized they spent all our SS money. In that case, I'd prefer a private entity that would be held responsible for handling the money properly.

And if this privatization of SS is for the next generation, and the current SS money for this generation has been spent, what's gonna happen? They're just not getting their SS or is the Federal Reserve going to just make some more fiat and use that?

I think they'll probably end up seizing everyone's retirement accounts--for your own protection from the evil private sector, of course. So that everyone's money is safe, they'll have to take control of it and then redistribute the funds fairly.

Some times I can't tell if you're joking or not.

You don't think that's a plausible scenario? They certainly don't seem to be planning on fixing the balancing the budget in a conventional way any time soon, nor do they have a problem with taking people's money.

Not really. If anything they are going to do some of the following.
1) raise the age restrictions
2) limit benefit amounts
3) remove the cap on income that can be taxed
4) raise the tax rate itself
5) put in spending limits (you can only use the money to buy XYZ, not ABC)
6) Say that those with over X dollars qualify for only partial payments (or no payments over Z amount)
7) raise the inheritance tax, and have a portion of it go to SS (that is probably the most extreme that I can see happening with our current breed of politicans).

If anyone tried anything more extreme (and even many of these) they would get kicked out of office so fast and replaced with someone that would undo those and try a different approach.

And if SS was the only problem, maybe those solutions would work. But they also need much more money for Medicare, and it simply isn't going to be possible to get enough with any amount of tax increases or minor cuts. They'll have a choice between massive cuts in Medicare, or kicking the can a bit down the road with asset seizures.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:51:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 5:51:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 5:49:19 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:40:52 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:09:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How will the transition to privatized Social Security pan out? Wouldn't this be a rather difficult and unsecure transition?:

What do smart people do?

1. They plan ahead for retirement.

2. They set up 401k's, IRA's, invest in stocks, bonds, etc to create for themselves their own retirement.

3. They don't rely on the government to take care of them with their paltry checks.

Did it ever occur to you why 401k's are even in existence? It's because Social Security is a joke. You can't even live off of the funds, and by the time you reach the age draw from it, the Baby Boomers will have depleted the reserves. You will never see the money that the government took from you that was set aside for you.

The number of senior citizens, for the first time in US history, is almost greater than the amount of children born. Why?

1. Seniors are dying at a later age thanks to healthier living and improving medical care.

2. People are having less and less children. The average is 1 child per home. Compare that to the baby boom generation which averaged 3-4 per household.

There won't be a large enough workforce in the future to sustain the amount of people drawing from it.

Sooooo.... Save for your retirement, and do not rely on the government. No one gives more of a sh*t about Geo, than Geo. So take care of Geo.

Yes, what you say is true, however that doesn't directly address the issue. The Social Security money is still OUR money and I wanted to know how we will be guaranteed that we get that money back.

You won't get any of it back. Start making other plans for your retirement.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:02:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 5:50:23 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:46:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:32:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:29:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:21:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:18:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Oh, ok. I hadn't realized they spent all our SS money. In that case, I'd prefer a private entity that would be held responsible for handling the money properly.

And if this privatization of SS is for the next generation, and the current SS money for this generation has been spent, what's gonna happen? They're just not getting their SS or is the Federal Reserve going to just make some more fiat and use that?

I think they'll probably end up seizing everyone's retirement accounts--for your own protection from the evil private sector, of course. So that everyone's money is safe, they'll have to take control of it and then redistribute the funds fairly.

Some times I can't tell if you're joking or not.

You don't think that's a plausible scenario? They certainly don't seem to be planning on fixing the balancing the budget in a conventional way any time soon, nor do they have a problem with taking people's money.

Not really. If anything they are going to do some of the following.
1) raise the age restrictions
2) limit benefit amounts
3) remove the cap on income that can be taxed
4) raise the tax rate itself
5) put in spending limits (you can only use the money to buy XYZ, not ABC)
6) Say that those with over X dollars qualify for only partial payments (or no payments over Z amount)
7) raise the inheritance tax, and have a portion of it go to SS (that is probably the most extreme that I can see happening with our current breed of politicans).

If anyone tried anything more extreme (and even many of these) they would get kicked out of office so fast and replaced with someone that would undo those and try a different approach.

And if SS was the only problem, maybe those solutions would work. But they also need much more money for Medicare, and it simply isn't going to be possible to get enough with any amount of tax increases or minor cuts. They'll have a choice between massive cuts in Medicare, or kicking the can a bit down the road with asset seizures.

Not really. There is plenty of fraud that can be cut from Medicare (as well as SS), however, everytime we look at cutting fraud, the other side (I'm referring to rep/dem) screams "THEY'RE CUTTING MEDICARE!!!"

When SS started it was set at 65 years old, and the average life span was something like 68 years old (pulling that from memory). The age (in my opinion) needs to be bumped up to somewhere in the low to mid 70's, as the population lives longer.

Personally, I'd like to see it take a different approach, where each person actually has their own, individual account. That is what you put in (plus the forced employer match), how much interest it made (yes, I believe it should be invested to maximize it's growth and usefulness), and how much you have left.

Though I'm a complete douche, if you pass away before using it all, only the portion that you put in and part of the interest (the part that is from your money) goes to your family. The part, which your employer put in, goes to the government.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:07:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 6:02:28 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:50:23 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:46:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:32:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:29:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:21:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:18:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Oh, ok. I hadn't realized they spent all our SS money. In that case, I'd prefer a private entity that would be held responsible for handling the money properly.

And if this privatization of SS is for the next generation, and the current SS money for this generation has been spent, what's gonna happen? They're just not getting their SS or is the Federal Reserve going to just make some more fiat and use that?

I think they'll probably end up seizing everyone's retirement accounts--for your own protection from the evil private sector, of course. So that everyone's money is safe, they'll have to take control of it and then redistribute the funds fairly.

Some times I can't tell if you're joking or not.

You don't think that's a plausible scenario? They certainly don't seem to be planning on fixing the balancing the budget in a conventional way any time soon, nor do they have a problem with taking people's money.

Not really. If anything they are going to do some of the following.
1) raise the age restrictions
2) limit benefit amounts
3) remove the cap on income that can be taxed
4) raise the tax rate itself
5) put in spending limits (you can only use the money to buy XYZ, not ABC)
6) Say that those with over X dollars qualify for only partial payments (or no payments over Z amount)
7) raise the inheritance tax, and have a portion of it go to SS (that is probably the most extreme that I can see happening with our current breed of politicans).

If anyone tried anything more extreme (and even many of these) they would get kicked out of office so fast and replaced with someone that would undo those and try a different approach.

And if SS was the only problem, maybe those solutions would work. But they also need much more money for Medicare, and it simply isn't going to be possible to get enough with any amount of tax increases or minor cuts. They'll have a choice between massive cuts in Medicare, or kicking the can a bit down the road with asset seizures.

Not really. There is plenty of fraud that can be cut from Medicare (as well as SS), however, everytime we look at cutting fraud, the other side (I'm referring to rep/dem) screams "THEY'RE CUTTING MEDICARE!!!"

When SS started it was set at 65 years old, and the average life span was something like 68 years old (pulling that from memory). The age (in my opinion) needs to be bumped up to somewhere in the low to mid 70's, as the population lives longer.

Personally, I'd like to see it take a different approach, where each person actually has their own, individual account. That is what you put in (plus the forced employer match), how much interest it made (yes, I believe it should be invested to maximize it's growth and usefulness), and how much you have left.

Though I'm a complete douche, if you pass away before using it all, only the portion that you put in and part of the interest (the part that is from your money) goes to your family. The part, which your employer put in, goes to the government.

Hows the government supposed to take money from the fund if you did that though? hah
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:12:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 6:07:13 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:02:28 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:50:23 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:46:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:32:02 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:29:19 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:21:27 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:18:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Oh, ok. I hadn't realized they spent all our SS money. In that case, I'd prefer a private entity that would be held responsible for handling the money properly.

And if this privatization of SS is for the next generation, and the current SS money for this generation has been spent, what's gonna happen? They're just not getting their SS or is the Federal Reserve going to just make some more fiat and use that?

I think they'll probably end up seizing everyone's retirement accounts--for your own protection from the evil private sector, of course. So that everyone's money is safe, they'll have to take control of it and then redistribute the funds fairly.

Some times I can't tell if you're joking or not.

You don't think that's a plausible scenario? They certainly don't seem to be planning on fixing the balancing the budget in a conventional way any time soon, nor do they have a problem with taking people's money.

Not really. If anything they are going to do some of the following.
1) raise the age restrictions
2) limit benefit amounts
3) remove the cap on income that can be taxed
4) raise the tax rate itself
5) put in spending limits (you can only use the money to buy XYZ, not ABC)
6) Say that those with over X dollars qualify for only partial payments (or no payments over Z amount)
7) raise the inheritance tax, and have a portion of it go to SS (that is probably the most extreme that I can see happening with our current breed of politicans).

If anyone tried anything more extreme (and even many of these) they would get kicked out of office so fast and replaced with someone that would undo those and try a different approach.

And if SS was the only problem, maybe those solutions would work. But they also need much more money for Medicare, and it simply isn't going to be possible to get enough with any amount of tax increases or minor cuts. They'll have a choice between massive cuts in Medicare, or kicking the can a bit down the road with asset seizures.

Not really. There is plenty of fraud that can be cut from Medicare (as well as SS), however, everytime we look at cutting fraud, the other side (I'm referring to rep/dem) screams "THEY'RE CUTTING MEDICARE!!!"

When SS started it was set at 65 years old, and the average life span was something like 68 years old (pulling that from memory). The age (in my opinion) needs to be bumped up to somewhere in the low to mid 70's, as the population lives longer.

Personally, I'd like to see it take a different approach, where each person actually has their own, individual account. That is what you put in (plus the forced employer match), how much interest it made (yes, I believe it should be invested to maximize it's growth and usefulness), and how much you have left.

Though I'm a complete douche, if you pass away before using it all, only the portion that you put in and part of the interest (the part that is from your money) goes to your family. The part, which your employer put in, goes to the government.

Hows the government supposed to take money from the fund if you did that though? hah

That's the point, they can't. Well, not without cooking the books, but would any elected official really do anything so sinister? (don't answer that).

Really, what would end up happening if they decided to try to cook the books, would be that they would take money from individual accounts without recording it. When those accounts came to time to pay up, the government would have to print money to put back in them (so that they don't get caught). But if they are going to be printing money off to cover their bums, then they might as well just print money off from the start, rather than take from the funds.

Though, likely, I could see the government (if proper restraints are not put in place) taking from individual accounts that they believe the person will die before he collects much of it (so they are taking their employer's share early), but sooner or later, they will get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:55:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 5:09:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How will the transition to privatized Social Security pan out? Wouldn't this be a rather difficult and unsecure transition?

I think it will. I do not agree with privatization. It does not seem right.


You're basically taking a big lump sum of our money and just saying "here you go mister private entity. I hope you take good care of all this money!" What is actually going to happen to our Social Security money and how can we be sure that this private entity can be trusted?
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 7:04:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 6:55:29 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:09:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How will the transition to privatized Social Security pan out? Wouldn't this be a rather difficult and unsecure transition?

I think it will. I do not agree with privatization. It does not seem right.

I'd offer to debate you on this, but I know you always cop out of any challenges from serious debaters by calling them lunatics and then repeating the bromides your professors told you.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 7:17:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 7:04:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:55:29 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:09:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How will the transition to privatized Social Security pan out? Wouldn't this be a rather difficult and unsecure transition?

I think it will. I do not agree with privatization. It does not seem right.

I'd offer to debate you on this, but I know you always cop out of any challenges from serious debaters by calling them lunatics and then repeating the bromides your professors told you.

I am busy. I barely have time for this stuff. There is no way privatization is realistic. Government is influenced by people through election. People like socialistic programs even if they will not admit it. There is no way to win a real debate on the matter. You live in a utopian world where the United States does not exist.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 7:29:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yes, what you say is true, however that doesn't directly address the issue. The Social Security money is still OUR money and I wanted to know how we will be guaranteed that we get that money back.:

I wish there was a way to get that money back for you, for me, and the millions of others who have paid thousands upon thousands in to it over the years. Sadly, I see no way to.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:01:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 7:17:11 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/26/2011 7:04:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:55:29 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:09:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How will the transition to privatized Social Security pan out? Wouldn't this be a rather difficult and unsecure transition?

I think it will. I do not agree with privatization. It does not seem right.

I'd offer to debate you on this, but I know you always cop out of any challenges from serious debaters by calling them lunatics and then repeating the bromides your professors told you.

I am busy. I barely have time for this stuff. There is no way privatization is realistic. Government is influenced by people through election. People like socialistic programs even if they will not admit it. There is no way to win a real debate on the matter. You live in a utopian world where the United States does not exist.

So...were you trying to fulfill my prediction as a joke, or are you just a complete tool as I hypothesized?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:13:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 8:01:40 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/26/2011 7:17:11 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/26/2011 7:04:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:55:29 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:09:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How will the transition to privatized Social Security pan out? Wouldn't this be a rather difficult and unsecure transition?

I think it will. I do not agree with privatization. It does not seem right.

I'd offer to debate you on this, but I know you always cop out of any challenges from serious debaters by calling them lunatics and then repeating the bromides your professors told you.

I am busy. I barely have time for this stuff. There is no way privatization is realistic. Government is influenced by people through election. People like socialistic programs even if they will not admit it. There is no way to win a real debate on the matter. You live in a utopian world where the United States does not exist.

So...were you trying to fulfill my prediction as a joke, or are you just a complete tool as I hypothesized?

I am pretty sure you do not know what you're talking about, and pretty inept in political science, public policy, congress, constitutional law, etc.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:19:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 7:04:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:55:29 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:09:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How will the transition to privatized Social Security pan out? Wouldn't this be a rather difficult and unsecure transition?

I think it will. I do not agree with privatization. It does not seem right.

I'd offer to debate you on this, but I know you always cop out of any challenges from serious debaters by calling them lunatics and then repeating the bromides your professors told you.

SAT vocabulary word.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:29:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 8:19:38 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 4/26/2011 7:04:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I'd offer to debate you on this, but I know you always cop out of any challenges from serious debaters by calling them lunatics and then repeating the bromides your professors told you.

SAT vocabulary word.

False. Ayn Rand vocabulary word.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:30:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 8:13:43 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/26/2011 8:01:40 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/26/2011 7:17:11 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/26/2011 7:04:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I'd offer to debate you on this, but I know you always cop out of any challenges from serious debaters by calling them lunatics and then repeating the bromides your professors told you.

I am busy. I barely have time for this stuff. There is no way privatization is realistic. Government is influenced by people through election. People like socialistic programs even if they will not admit it. There is no way to win a real debate on the matter. You live in a utopian world where the United States does not exist.

So...were you trying to fulfill my prediction as a joke, or are you just a complete tool as I hypothesized?

I am pretty sure you do not know what you're talking about, and pretty inept in political science, public policy, congress, constitutional law, etc.

Lol, so predictable. Let's see, I'm studying to be a brain surgeon, what have you done with your life? I've never lost a debate, either on DDO or in NFL competition. You're barely literate.

Send me a debate challenge when your balls drop.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:33:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 8:13:43 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/26/2011 8:01:40 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/26/2011 7:17:11 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/26/2011 7:04:54 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:55:29 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 4/26/2011 5:09:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How will the transition to privatized Social Security pan out? Wouldn't this be a rather difficult and unsecure transition?

I think it will. I do not agree with privatization. It does not seem right.

I'd offer to debate you on this, but I know you always cop out of any challenges from serious debaters by calling them lunatics and then repeating the bromides your professors told you.

I am busy. I barely have time for this stuff. There is no way privatization is realistic. Government is influenced by people through election. People like socialistic programs even if they will not admit it. There is no way to win a real debate on the matter. You live in a utopian world where the United States does not exist.

So...were you trying to fulfill my prediction as a joke, or are you just a complete tool as I hypothesized?

I am pretty sure you do not know what you're talking about, and pretty inept in political science, public policy, congress, constitutional law, etc.

Get your ad hom bullsh*t out of this thread.