Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TOP 11 REASONS PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY IS A BAD IDEA.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 04:53 PM
Original message
TOP 11 REASONS PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY IS A BAD IDEA.
TOP 11 REASONS PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY IS A BAD IDEA.

Today’s insurance to protect workers and their families against death and disability would be threatened.
Creating private accounts would make Social Security’s financing problem worse, not better.
Creating private accounts could dampen economic growth, which would further weaken Social Security’s future finances.
Privatization has not worked elsewhere.
The odds are against individuals investing successfully.
What you get will depend on whether you retire when the market is up or down.
Wall Street would reap windfalls from your taxes.
Private accounts would require a new government bureaucracy.
Young people would be worse off.
Women stand to lose the most.
African Americans and Hispanic Americans also would become more vulnerable under privatization.
Source: The Century Foundation


* * * * *
SOCIAL SECURITY: KNOW THE FACTS. As the Social Security debate heats up in Congress, make sure you know the facts and understand the risk of the Republicans’ privatization schemes.

Social Security is the foundation of a secure retirement. In 2005, more than 47 million Americans will receive nearly $510 billion in benefits. The average benefit for a retired worker is $950 a month. Nine out of ten individuals age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits. For nearly two-thirds of retirees, Social Security provides more than half their income. While some retirees have pensions or savings, Social Security is the only guaranteed retirement income seniors have. In addition to providing retirement benefits, Social Security is a crucial life and disability insurance program. More than 6 million disabled workers, nearly 5 million widows, and 4 million children receive Social Security benefits.

Social Security is based on the contributions of millions of workers in order to ensure that every American can achieve retirement security. It is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay 6.2% of wages up to the taxable maximum of $87,900 (in 2004). Social Security also receives revenue from the income taxation of Social Security benefits, and interest earnings on its reserves.

Social Security is a defined benefit,which means that workers are guaranteed a certain level of retirement benefits. The benefits are linked to the worker’s earnings level, so it provides continuity of income in retirement. Social Security's benefits keep pace with inflation and last as long as the person lives; they can't be depleted like a savings account can. And they can’t lose value, such as a 401(k) invested in the stock market. And unlike any private pension or savings plan, Social Security also pays benefits to qualified family members, without reducing the amount going to the worker.

The Social Security Trust Fund is a financial account in the U.S. Treasury. Social Security taxes are deposited in this account, and Social Security benefits are paid from it. Also, the Social Security Trust Fund holds any funds not needed in the current year to pay benefits and invests them in interest-earning Treasury bonds that are guaranteed by the U.S. Government.

The Social Security Trust Fund is NOT going bankrupt. Social Security faces a challenge, not a crisis. Social Security is solvent for nearly 50 years, and even after that it will still be able to pay 80 % of benefits.

All of the Republican proposals to overhaul Social Security will cut benefits. President Bush’s Commission came up with three different proposals to privatize Social Security, and every one of these proposals would cut Social Security’s guaranteed benefits. In fact, even people who don’t choose to enroll in the new individual accounts will have their benefits cut.

Private accounts are very different than a 401(k). Unlike the “private accounts” Republicans are proposing, a 401(k) does not reduce the amount of Social Security benefits you are entitled to receive. In other words, 401(k)s supplement Social Security rather than replace it, as the Republican schemes would. Finally, a 401(k) also allows retirees to keep control of their investments beyond their retirement date. The “private accounts” proposed by Republicans would require workers to convert all or most of their "private retirement accounts" into an annuity at retirement, which means they would have to turn over their account balances to an insurance company, and couldn’t leave it to their heirs. In addition, forcing individuals to annuitize means that, during a downturn in the market, seniors would either have to postpone their retirement or face a significant drop in retirement income.

None of the Republican proposals will extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund. The Republican proposals to privatize Social Security actually move the date of Trust Fund insolvency up by over 20 years, to 2021. That’s because they take approximately $2 trillion out of the Social Security Trust Fund and move hard earned retirement contributions into the stock market.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Nope - enjoy investing your own - just deposit the payroll tax also!
:-)

something about an intergenerational promise

or do you want the old folks to be on welfare instead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PA Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. Or better yet,
do you want your parents to move in with you when they reach retirement age?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelagius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. You have money? Hand it over to the PEOPLE, baby...
...starting with me. Capital is a SIN and I'm here to SAVE YOU from it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. uh, there's a $90,000 cap on pay in's. That ceiling should be
raised maybe instead of lowering benefits ? Hmmm ? Read David Cay Johnston's "Perfectly Legal" chapter 8 on how we subsidize the wealthiest 1 1/2% of taxpayers !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #14
36. If we removed the cap, Social Security would be solvent forever.
Also, the poor should receive the same benefit as the rich. For instance, I never made as much as my husband, so my benefit is half of his. Now it isn't my fault. My productive work years were at a time when women were earning 63 cents to a man's dollar with a glass ceiling that kept you from promotion to good paying jobs. Even today I think the last stat I saw on that was that it was 73 cents to the dollar.

This is why people like Warren Buffett shouldn't get more monthly Social Security than Juan, the restaurant worker, who really needs it. Now I don't think Warren shouldn't get a Social Security check because he will have paid more into it than he ever gets back if the caps are lifted. The way it works now, is rich people like him will get back more than they ever paid into it, so I think that injustice needs to be fixed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Nobody is stopping you from investing your money .......
You can invest your money anyplace you want to.

You can invest your money anyplace you want to in addition to, that is, above and beyond your FICA.

The government gives you a whole chapter of the Internal Revenue Code of Tax Free, Tax Exempt, and Tax Deferred Investments in addition to, that is, above and beyond your FICA.

Nobody is stopping you from 401(k) plans, or 403 plans, or IRA's, or Keoughs, or just investing in non-tax sheltered behicles, and paying taxes, in addition to, that is, above and beyond your FICA.

Your Social Security is not - and should not be - your primary investment vehicle. It should be your zero risk floor vehicle.

Bush lies - people die.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaedelusNemo Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
23. There is a problem with that setup
In that people in higher tax brackets are getting more subsidy for their savings than people in low tax brackets, which of course is inverse to the need. Perhaps something like a matching fund, decreasing as the total stacks up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Philosophically and politically you raise a good point ...
in any progressive and graduated tax system, higher income taxpayers (who are, because of the progressive and graduated rate structure) getting more of a "subsidy" for their savings, their mortgage, their charitable deductions, their state and local tax deductions, in fact for all of their itemized deductions.

Perhaps a fairer way would be to allow itemized deductions to be deducted at a flat rate (say 15% or 35% for every tax payer regardless of adjusted gross) -- or to gradually slim down the itemized deduction as adjusted gross went up (which is sort of the present system).

Non trivial, and is inherent in our system of progressive and graduated rates.

However, as Jonathan Chait points out in this week's New Republic, any "flat tax" is inherently regressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaedelusNemo Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #28
33. and those are interesting ideas
I don't know as much about tax structure as i really ought. If deductions were at a flat rate, what would happen when the total deductions went over total tax liability?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. Depends
With Progressives, middle income and low income might get a refundable credit for the "deductions" we like. With the GOP, higher income taxpayers would get a refundable credit for the "deductions" they like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaedelusNemo Donating Member (336 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. good point
maybe they can agree on the utility of increasing savings and investment via retirement accounts, even if it is poured in on the demand side instead of the supply side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. The old (Milt Shapp era) Pennsylvania Income Tax (Version I)
which was thrown out by the PA supreme court. A very large tax exempt "base income" plus specifically enumerated itemized deductions. Everything above that was taxed at one rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressiveBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. No one here is stopping you
I too invest my own money. And in case one of the companies I have invested heavily in turns out to be like Enron, I have social security so that I don't have to work until I am dead.
This isn't about being able to invest money. It's about cutting short a promise that was given to people who trust their government to do what they are supposed to: protect the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Right On badger. BTW, we in the SF area need to get public
ownership of our football team before Dr. John York runs what was once the finest franchise in the NFC into the ground. How do we get public control, like you Packers' fans did, of your franchise (so it never gets sold to another city, etc.) ?

This ties into this SS discussion since its the same thing, a decent retirement base level should be a right in this country so our elderly don't get forced into the streets just so some corporations can blow the money on crazy investments themselves (Enron for openers).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressiveBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Go bankrupt
Seriously. They were going to go under until a bunch of local businessmen saved the team. :) It really is a wonderful concept, though nowadays, football teams are BIG money makers and it would take a lot to get it out of private hands. I wish you the best of luck, the niners are my wife's team and she was pretty dissapointed with this season. Plus I miss those great Packer 49er playoff games.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cobalt Violet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. And you really think you'll be able to do that under Bush's plan.
:D :7 You won't get ANY say in how your $$$ is invested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
29. I assumed there would be investment options
like a 401(k) - growth funds, value funds, balanced funds, bond funds, fixed accounts. Am I not understanding it right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cobalt Violet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. I've heard not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. you have that option now.
but let me ask you, what would happen if the company(s) you invest in cooks their books pumping up the price of the stock while granting themselves thousands of options and cashing in before stock price plumments leaving you practically penniless? Let's say this happens when you are 59 and recovering from your heart attack/bypass surgery. What resources will you then turn to? What would happen if you could never work again?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
30. Of course you would be
diversified.

Hopefully we all learned a good lesson from the fools who invested their entire retirement accounts in Enron.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Listen to grandma.

Invest in stocks, bonds, fixed contracts. That way an Enron won't kill you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. No, just pay those insurance premiums
to FICA just in case you're like the majority of small investors and lose your shirt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. Nothing stopping you from investing on your own now.
You still have to pay the FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act).

Do you see that??? INSURANCE... it is not an investment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
classof56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. No, you are welcome here.
My only advice about investing your own money and having nada go into social security (along with the employer contribution) is--read carefully everything you can set your eyes on about the multitude of problems that would result from doing away with SS entirely. The fund is in good shape now and for about 40-50 years from now, ensuring that those of us who are already and will shortly be receiving benefits can at least have a decent financial future even if we don't have huge investments elsewhere that will pay off for us. Not to mention that SS is also a safety net for kids who've lost their parents, and those who are disabled and can't work, for example. I've known some very nice, hardworking people who find themselves needing that safety net because of reasons beyond their control. As John Lennon said, "Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans." It benefits all of us to enable those less fortunate than we are to have a soft place to fall when "life happens." Social security exists to serve that purpose among others, and it is one of the best-managed and most solvent of government programs. Take a look at the article about Bush's "Piratization" of Social Security on the DU Home Page.

Best wishes, and may only good things happen in your life. Again--welcome to DU.

Tired Old Cynic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
against all enemies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
9. How many "Wall Streeters" has Bush appointed to his administration?
I'm sure quite a few, and they are working overtime to get their hands on your retirement. They will get paid for their overtime, you won't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMarple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
10. Britain tried privatizing. Now they look longingly at our S.S. plan.
They started down a slippery slope in 1979 under fearless misleader Margaret Thatcher, they ended up with a huge financial scandal in the 90's involving the private entities in charge of the private pensions and hundreds of thousands of retired folks are in deep trouble. Many are looking at our social security as a model to get them out of the privatization quagmire created by Thatcherite conservatives.

You have to read this. I think the Republicans know exactly what they are doing. No one could be that stupid! Surely?

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8997
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
11. You can already buy an annuity. Bush wants to force me to pay
into his experimental system. OK, we can use HIS money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The River Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
15. I'm Getting Close to Retirement
and this really has me worried. Everything
* touches turns to shit. I've been paying into
the system for 45 years and I'll be damned if
if he is going to let Wall Street steal it out
from under me. Knowing how spineless our Dem
Senators are though, I guess I'll have give up my
care-free born-again bachelorhood, find a "sugar mama",
and get married to keep from starving in 2011.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Given the lack of IRA's before 77 that makes sense - but again
the "system" is to take care of the old - the folks that are old when you are younger - we have a payroll tax.

Last I looked money could not be spent twice.

If we spend it by sending it to your private account, we can not spend it by cutting a Social Security check.

So we in effect must borrow the money to put in your private account - but Bush will not charge you directly for the interest on that borrowing.

Instead we will charge indirectly by raising your FIT tax.

So there is no free lunch and you are back with a choice.

A private account and higher FIT Taxes,

or a private account and Soc Sec benefits so low your folks move in with you and must beg for a welfare check.

Your choice.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
22. There's only one thing you need to know. . .


The fact that George W. Bush is pushing private retirement accounts to replace Social Security should tell you all you need to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeStateDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Sadly for our country, it really is that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livinginphotographs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnnInLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
25. 12th reason....you can outlive your private account, but
not your SS account
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
27. But didn't Bush say that the Social Security program has WMD?
He wouldn't lie to his followers would he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flaminbats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 04:16 AM
Response to Original message
32. another reason to oppose this..
Edited on Fri Jan-14-05 04:18 AM by flaminbats
what happens to stock prices as babyboomers begin to retire, and collectively pull this money out of the market? It will be the beginning of an endless domino effect in which more investors pull money out as stock prices spiral downward.

IMO this will happen because of the investment generation gap, but privatizing Social Security would only worsen such an economic disaster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC