Posted on 05/25/2005 8:42:08 AM PDT by qam1
The lump sum option wasn't available to me when I retired. I suggest you take the money and run. :^)
Two problems with your scheme:
First, the government will continue to tax you heavily to pay Social Security benefits while you wait for enough of the baby boomers to leave the scene.
Second, there is no reason to believe that enough Gen-X/Gen-Y people will be willing to give up their Social Security benefits when their time comes. My guess is that most will demand to get their "entitlement" just as their elders have.
Your post proves his point.
We're going to. We will only be in our late 40's, though. I'm in college part time so I can start a second career. So far so good, 4.0 GPA!
I happen to agree with that sentiment. The difference is, I think that "the less well-off" (and others) should be in control of their money anyway, and then let the chips fall where they may.
Allow me to help. ALL of your money goes straight to fund the 2.6 Trillion gubmint budget.
The money is NOT used to buy TReasuries. They are special IOUs which are NOT marketable. For example, you could make yourself an IOU that says you are a worth a million, but the 'note' would be worthless, except by your income power.
In 2018 the government will lost this source of 300 - 400 billion in funds. Then real treasuries will have to issued or drastic cuts made. Interest rates will go up.
I think that's right. Given the problem is fewer workers and longer lives, they think privatizing is meant to pull their plug sooner rather than later. In short, in spite of promises, they don't believe George Bush.
I don't know why the Bush people should be surprised. AARP has been lying and lying and lying about anything to do with SS. They should have seen it coming.
"However, the true beneficiaries were the seniors that recieved benefits without paying into the system..."
Any person that receives a SS check is a beneficiary of a welfare system. Try to deny it with the above justification if it makes you feel any better. It is nothing more than income redistribution of earnings to buy votes. Why do you think the biggest welfare demographic in our country is also the most active politically?
Every generation is robbed from to pay the generation prior to them. It is nothing new now. The generation now that is blocking change at the expense of the later generations is doing nothing but saying, "hey we got robbed, so you should be robbed even more!" The fact that they will not be effected by the proposed changes and they still want to make sure we get robbed, speaks volumes.
The more welfare someone recieves, the more interest they have in ensuring their agenda is continually moving forward.
I was 46 when I retired. I thoroughly enjoy being gainfully "unemployed"!
I'm in college part time so I can start a second career. So far so good, 4.0 GPA!
That's great.
The GOP never learns. The RATS say something needs to be done, the GOP takes the bait, the RATS yank the football, and demogogue and on and on. Ever wonder why the RATS don't "take care" of the thing when they are the majority, (40 years or so)?
No kidding. Seniors have taken out so much more than they ever put in. Where is the thanks?
The older the polling sample, the less support you find for tinkering with Social Security. The younger the sample, the greater the support.
They have been exposed to liberal indoctrinaion longer.
It's the FDR / New Deal worship factor. In reality, when the Great Depression started, even Hoover did not have the stones to let all the bad debt work itself out and to resist the temptation of heavy government involvement in the crisis. FDR, seeing his opportunity, given all of the poorly financially educated minions who had leveraged themselves into the hole during the unreal days of horrible P/E ratios, knew that he could build on the already established interventionist tactics of Hoover and turn the whole thing into "economic rescue by government" on steroids. In fact, Hoover's small intervention made things worse, and FDR's major intervention made things FAR worse. But the people, now sensing something wholly new, namely, the US government interjecting itself right into the core of the economy, had their quick fix of entitlements and so was the "gimme" culture born.
FDR then went on to overspend socially and underspend militarily, setting the stage for the near defeat of the US and UK during the outset of the hottest (2nd) phase of WW2, and thereby manufactured yet another crisis which would call for even MORE government intervention. By the time the war was over, the "Greatest Generation" as well as the teenaged Silent Generation and the toddling earlist Boomers had been conditioned to accept socialism lite as well as the whole idea of a government "final safety net" to protect them from any future sudden major equity adjustments.
What a mess.
Indeed, I think there are weasel words to that effect. I remember reading that there was a current 28% shortfall on my statement.
Since we have already suffered two cuts from age increases, I say rebalance this 28% lower and spread among ALL generations.
If she thinks government should force people not to invest in the stock market, then she's not terribly Republican.
By the way, even someone who began investing for his retirement right before the 1929 crash and kept his money in would have made out better in the end, percentage-wise, than someone putting his money in Social Security throughout his working years, even in the healthiest economic times.
"So, she is not being greedy, she is just very wary."
So, she would prefer that the Government act as our parent/nanny. Does she understand that the investment portion is a CHOICE? She doesn't think I deserve to choose what to do with my own earnings?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.