Skip to comments.49% Say Workers Should Be Able To Opt Out of Social Security
Posted on 08/21/2009 9:01:06 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters say working Americans should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and provide for their own retirement planning.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% disagree and do not believe Americans should be able to opt out of Social Security. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure.
A majority of voters under 50 say workers should be allowed to opt out. A plurality of those over 50 disagree.
One of President Obamas top economic advisers signaled this week that the president will try to reform Social Security before the end of his first term. Voters are also closely divided on whether this is a good idea despite news that the system may be closer to running out of money than previously reported.
Thirty-six percent (36%) say reforming Social Security should be one of Obamas top priorities, but 41% dont share that view. Twenty-three percent (23%) are undecided.
Sixty percent (60%) of voters are not confident that the Social Security system will pay them all promised benefits during their lifetime, with 36% not very confident and 24% not at all confident. Thirty-eight percent (38%) express confidence in Social Security, including 13% who are very confident and 25% who are somewhat confident in the system.
This marks a drop in confidence in Social Security since August of last year. Sixty-two percent (62%) at that time agreed with candidate Obamas plan to make Americans pay Social Security taxes on most or all of their incomes. Now they are taxed only on annual income up to $102,000.
Beyond making all income taxable, however, the tax option does not appear politically attractive. Voters by a two-to-one margin 54% to 27% - dont believe Social Security taxes should be increased ...
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
The "problem" with putting payroll taxes in personal accounts is that Congress cannot spend that tax money and must either
(1) borrow even more -- annual deficits already exceed $1 trillion
(2) raise other taxes
(3) cut spending on entitlements or other items
Democrats would only consider (2).
Entitlements, including Medicare, are a coming trainwreck, and government WILL need to ration what Medicare pays for. Seniors are not morally entitled to unlimited health care or generous SS benefits at taxpayer expense. Sure, they paid into the system, but that money is spent, and seniors are more responsible for that than any other group because they had more changes to vote for anti-Ponzi politicians.
1. How confident are you that the Social Security system will pay you all promised retirement benefits during your lifetime?
13% Very confident
25% Somewhat confident
36% Not very confident
24% Not at all confident
3% Not sure
2. One of President Obamas top economic advisors says the president will attempt to reform Social Security before the end of his first term. Should reforming Social Security be one of President Obamas top priorities?
23% Not sure
3. Should working Americans be allowed to opt out of Social Security and provide for their own retirement planning?
15% Not sure
4. Should Social Security taxes be increased to insure that all promised benefits are paid?
20% Not sure
5. Is Social Security a good deal for working Americans today?
15% Not sure
Opt out of it? What are they thinking? They must be some of those loons who think is some kind of free country.
If you are truly concerned with the elderly having the means to care for themselves in their retirement years, you get the government COMPLETELY out of the retirement savings game.
Social Security has, and will always be, a generational tax and wealth transfer.
If you get government, illegals and ambulance chasing attorneys out of health care, seniors and most everyone else would be able to afford health care and you would not need Medicare.
If government shrinks (SSN, Medicare and other Federal job programs go away), you can have lower taxes and a more vibrant and growing economy. Therefore, you have less of a need for medicaid as more people find good paying jobs.
And I could keep going with education, energy, post office etc etc.
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
They take your money, spend it, then promise they’ll pay you back awhen you turn 65- but the system is going broke
sounds like a great plan
Madoff didn’t do as much damage
Have we seen the government even attempt to pay back Social Security for all the money they have borrowed? They are partly responsible for the breaking of the system. I don’t know what the answer is for Social Security but if the government doesn’t abide by its promises to the elderly, then the rest of American’s can’t rely on anything they say. They sold this system to the elderly and they trusted the government. The younger generation should be able to decide for themselves but what do you do with the elderly?
if i could have had 12.4% of my salary for the last 30+ years to invest, i’d be ready to retire by now. SS is a worse ponzi scheme than Madoff - it is the biggest one in the history of the world.
...this is an old fight that will be lost I’m afraid...my mother was a school teacher in the 1930s when FDR went in....school teachers fought Social Security because they didn’t want their small pay checks to be reduced by SSI withholding....they lost their argument....seems quaint now days to recall a time when teachers were fiercely independent and fought a Democrat president.
Just gie me back all my SS money plus 3% compounded and I’ll be on my merry way.
this would be the fedgov trying to back out of having to fund social security for all those people that already paid into their ponzi scheme (they want to run away from their obligations towards the baby boomers)
here’s a part of my social security solution:
for everyone under 30-35, push their contributions to US bonds or some other self directed fund... all the monies to be held under the persons name and there should be restrictions on how the monies can be pulled (after a certain age, no more then X prior to that, etc). this would be like a schwab account and we would be able to get monthly statements like any portfolio. available online of course.
when the person kicks off, the account, like all investment accounts, would go to the persons estate (not the fedgov).
once a person has over some amount contributed to the account, contributions attached to a person’s salary would become voluntary. (i’d prefer all voluntary... but there would be loads of people that wouldn’t save... and i’d end up paying for them somehow)
a person should also be able to set the amount contributed from their salary, not to go below a certain amount depending on the total amount already contributed and the age of the individual.
the individual should be able to have their estate, like all assets, will them to a person, group of people, legal entity or other estate.
it should also be possible to have checks sent direct-deposit to a person’s normal checking account and available to withdrawal within moments. (amount able to be sent to the account quickly not to exceed a certain number thereby avoiding possible account theft and draining the account) a large amount should be able to be transferred, but should require the person to appear at their bank and sign some notarized form.
this would also mean that everyone would have a bank account. the account would be paperless and started on the day the persons social security number is issued. no monies would be available until the person comes into a participating bank for the first time with the appropriate documents and have the account ‘claimed’ (should be notarized as well; passwords set). deposits to the account would be allowed prior to that point (able to deposit monies for your child when they are born)
from that point on, full online access would be available.
The initial Social Security Act permitted municipal governments to opt out of the system - a loophole that Congress closed in 1983. ...
Galveston County's alternative plan to Social Security would be good for the nation ... to opt out of Social Security in favor of a privatized plan in 1981. ...
I would forfiet all of my SSI contributions over the last 20 years, if the government would allow me to opt out today and invest in my own future for the next 20 years.
How do you prevent them from ‘opting in’ later?
And its even worse than that- the current seniors took THEIR money, spent it and agreed to PAY THEMSELVES BACK out of OUR current money
THEY VOTED FOR THE POLITICIANS WHO MADE THIS PONZI SCHEME
As for Medicare we must continue to fund it so that the Dem's friends can continue to tap these funds to achieve their fraud, waster and abuse goals!
(Sarcasm Off) Phooey!
If you opt-out of Social Security you should receive all your “contributions” adjusted for inflation with no stipulations on their use. Your paycheck withholding for Social Security will be eliminated.
Furthermore, no more persons should be enrolled into Social Security after passage of this legislation.
The Federal Government should be treat as freeborn competent adults, not children.
The Federal Government should treat us as freeborn competent adults, not children.
I’m just glad to see the Soc Sec tipping point being reached with Democrats totally in charge in Washington.
If you're saving for retirement, you have already forfeit your "contributions". Since you'll have your own money, you won't "need" "theirs".