A dumb social security question

[kitkat65]

If social security becomes privatized, why hasn't anyone talked about the idea that forcing someone to fork over part of their earnings for some nebulous investment venture, seems well, like bullshit and basic theft.

At least with social security, the money is there, it is what it is, and has somewhat of a guarantee.

With privatization, wouldn't the average citizen have the legal right to not have to social security taken out of their paycheck since it no longer can be seen as either social or security?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. These are questions...

That the repukes don't want either asked or answered. They simply want you to channel your retirement money into the stock market, where it can be picked off by their constituents.

[rocktivity]

2. There's nothing wrong with SocSec that raising the salary cap can't fix

Get rid of it altogether, and EVERYONE can pay a lower rate!
DU-er AndyHappy explains it all for you.

:headbang:
rocknation

[TahitiNut]

5. Think about the federal minimum wage.

Every dollar of increased wages means more than $0.15 goes to Social Security (OASD). When a CEO gets a $1 million increase in 'compensation,' not a dime goes into Social Security (OASD).

It's not as much about taxing the higher end of the pay scale as it is about paying the lower end more fairly. Increasing pay is almost always better than increasing taxes.

[whistle]

3. Yep, it is theft, looting to be more precise and there are lots of

....examples, just look at the history and current situation of private pension funds.

[BOSSHOG]

4. Not a dumb question at all

One has to look inside the evil hearts and the evil minds of those who would rather do away with anything FDR provided for society; they are called republicans. Excellent question. Game, set and match to kitkat65.

Sadly those evil bastards are preying on the lower middle class and poor folk who think the gop is the bee knees; the ignorant bastards who believe Iraq had wmd and bush didn't lie and who have been taught that they have no use for social security in its current form. Pavlovian.

[mrcheerful]

6. Thats just the problem, its all smoke and mirrors to end SS altogether.

There are already provisions in SS that congress can invest the SS money into certain stocks, bonds or high interest yield accounts. What shrub and the rubber stampers want to do is divert a part of the SS money into investments by the individual wage earner so it is under his account only instead of going into a general fund as it does now. 2 major problems with this program are, 1) by diverting cash from the general fund it creates a shortage and a burden on the system. 2)Once that individual's investment dries up the retiree will then be left trying to live off a SS base pay per month,that amount depends on how much they defer into private stocks. Also, the government will not hand you a lump sum to invest as you see fit, the government chooses which stocks you can buy, gives you a list to pick from, then diverting the money as you pay in to the choices of stock you picked. In another words, the government still controls everything just you have the illusion that your in control.

[kitkat65]

7. See, that's what I think is illegal and quite frankly, unAmerican

to expect the average citizen to to be forced into what will amount to a government-sactioned corporate cash grab. And, I'm assuming that if those stocks tank (Enron, anyone?) then the average citizen is just out of luck? How can anybody not see through this shit?

But what troubles me is that I never hear any talking heads/experts/pundits (from the government or private sector) saying that this idea of our government morphing into a sort of investment broker would change this society into something completely different than a democracy. I understand the nuances in the replies (republicans wanting to do away with social security altogether, removing caps, and all that) but take all those arguments away and then it becomes a question of do we want this seismic shift away from what we consider democracy because our freedom of choice about what to do with our earnings is forever lost and our government will become the equivalent of "the company store." That's not even true capitalism, is it? What would you call that? A kind of Corporate Socialism because we would be expected as a social entity to carry the burden of risk for business?

Edited to add:

. . . Oh, never mind.