Social Security: Are We OWED a Retirement?

Published on January 6, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

In response to the flap over social security and privatization, I am inclined to ask if a retirement is something we should take for granted, or if it is something that belongs only to those who scrimp and save to provide their own retirement.

In answering this question, I think we first need to consider the Social Security system's setup. Begun under FDR, the system works in such a way that those who are recipients of the system receive their benefits based on the earnings of the current working generation. While this worked when the program was begun, at this point in time, many American workers have worked and paid into the system for many years, and social security benefits would simply be a payout of what they've already contributed. In short, they have worked for a promise that some politicians seem bent to remove from them.

The privatization argument has met with a good deal of criticism from the liberal camp, and with seemingly just cause. If the system is privatized, the argument goes, then the solvency of the program will be dependent upon the performance of private investment funds and not of the solvency of the US Government. But such a program makes sense to others on many levels. But to most conservatives, the idea has merits in that individuals could potentially have greater control over their retirement funds.

As the member of a generation that will most likely need to be older than 70 IF social security is still around, I'm inclined to dismiss the federal program altogether and work to provide for my own retirement. And I know many who feel as I do (mathematically speaking, I don't stand a very good chance of living far past 70, and would like to enjoy SOME retirement years). And so, to me, all I see is 20 years and counting of wasted contributions to a failed retirement system that have only served to decrease my earnings potential. For this reason among others I'm inclined to advocate for privatization, to have control over even a portion of my contributions to the pool.

Whatever the proposed solution, the other side is likely to debate it till the cows come home. And neither is likely to win. But, to answer the title question as to whether we are OWED a retirement, I would say, the answer is a resounding YES!, assuming we have paid into it as we should over the years. It is a fund into which we invested in trust and from which we should receive; otherwise, the social security withholdings should be nullified entirely and the system shut down altogether.

Respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish

Comments (Page 2)

kingbee

on Jan 11, 2005

the hypothetical "lock box"

once the money that shoulda been locked away is gone into someone else's pocket, you may change your mind about that too.

Rightwinger

on Jan 11, 2005

One of the things being considered, though, is investment in something like a 401K plan, or something similar. That wouldn't be a bad thing, as long as it could be guaranteed that they would never be tapped into.
Not at all sure I like the idea of investing my retirement in the stock market, though. I might as well invest it in the lottery; it's only a little less reliable.

I admit to not having too much knowledge about this subject, though, just things I've heard in passing on the news.

kingbee

on Jan 11, 2005

one of the things thats being totally overlooked here is the failure of companies to actually pay out the retirement benefits they promised our parents. what makes you so sure, they wont default on your investments if the economy isnt as rosy as they projected 30-40 years earlier?

Rightwinger

on Jan 11, 2005

One of the best examples of this I can think of is the time a nurse at the hospital I used to work at decided she wanted to retire. She went down to Human Resources to talk about it with whoever she had to see there.
She'd worked there for 32 years, but lo and behold, when HR got her file, they said they only had her as having worked there for 25 years. 7 years is a lot of pension.
The next day, the nurse came into the HR office with a file case full of paystubs from the hospital dating back to the mid-1970s......when she'd started. Within 2 days, HR had miraculously found the rest of her paperwork.

I'd be willing to trust the 401K thing, though, if laws could be passed to guarantee me my money when the time comes. I don't know....like I said, I'm not too up on this subject.

kingbee

on Jan 11, 2005

Within 2 days, HR had miraculously found the rest of her paperwork

glad to hear bout that. too cool!

sandy2

on Jan 11, 2005

First lets take a look at what would happen if the government were to invest money:

corruptness in the government would cause certain companies to have money invested in them. This would cause their stock prices to fall. Now, say the federal government starts selling stocks. BOOM. Collapse. By the time all the stocks are sold the stock is worthless. Also, the governemnt would have influence in the commercial world. This isnt supposed to happen, hence a capitalistic society. The reason we need things like social security is a) some people are poor and it is our responsibility to take care of them and

people don't always know whats best for them and thats where the government comes in.

The problem with Bush's plan is that it costs more to implement and fix than it would be to raise taxes to cover the deficit of social security. What we need is a total overhall that includes raising the retirment age, increasing the tax and decreasing the benefits for those who truly don't need them.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 11, 2005

kingbee,

But you, as many, are trusting in the GOVERNMENT to pay out retirement benefits. My contention is the government has violated its trust consistently enough as to not be worthy of my trust. If you have a problem with this assertion, I have a few American Indian friends who you might want to address.

drmiler

on Jan 11, 2005

drmiler

on Jan 11, 2005

Reply #21 By: sandy2 - 1/11/2005 1:29:55 PM
First lets take a look at what would happen if the government were to invest money:

I could be mistaken but I don't think Uncle Sam does the actual investing. It's more like a 401K where you can pick where it's going.

What we need is a total overhall that includes raising the retirment age, increasing the tax and decreasing the benefits for those who truly don't need them.

I may be wrong on the first part but I will never agree to the second.

sandy2

on Jan 11, 2005

I may be wrong on the first part but I will never agree to the second.

Do you feel that rather than raise taxes to cover losses or rather than to overhaul it, we should spent another trillion dollars now and say 30 trillion dollars over the next 50 years of money we don't have (ie bonds), costing more than the amount it would cost to cover the loss in taxes. There is a book I recomend everyone read... but I can't think of the title right now. Let me go find it.

drmiler

on Jan 11, 2005

Reply #25 By: sandy2 - 1/11/2005 2:47:02 PM
I may be wrong on the first part but I will never agree to the second.

Do you feel that rather than raise taxes to cover losses or rather than to overhaul it, we should spent another trillion dollars now and say 30 trillion dollars over the next 50 years of money we don't have (ie bonds), costing more than the amount it would cost to cover the loss in taxes. There is a book I recomend everyone read... but I can't think of the title right now. Let me go find it.

Do you know why it's going to cost that much? That's to replace what the government stole from the SS fund. And BTW where are you getting your figures from? 1 Trillion is an "estimation" not an actual figure.

Transition costs

Private-account advocates also are divided over how to handle the transition costs arising from Bush's promise that benefits would remain unchanged for current retirees and those near retirement. Every dollar diverted to younger workers' private accounts would not be available to pay promised benefits to retirees and older workers. The gap is estimated at $1 trillion to $2 trillion over 10 years.

Notice they don't say anything about the 30 trillion *your* talking about. Of course they're only talking about 10 years not 50.
Also read this.

"There is no such thing as fixing Social Security with no pain," said David John, an expert on Social Security at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

I could go with raising the tax. But reducing benefits and raising retirement age? NO WAY!

sandy2

on Jan 11, 2005

But reducing benefits and raising retirement age?

Tell me, why should people be able to retire so young. Its because they are selfish. SELFISH. I am not trying to say this because I'm trying to raise hairs on people's backs or anger anybody, but the people are selfish to the point that they are hurting the children. The children won't have what we have, because we are looting from them and we didn't have enough children to support us. We have a major problem, and for our children we need to sacrifice. Read the book The Coming Generational Storm by Laurence K. Kotlikoff and Scott Burns. When I finish reading it I will summerize their recomendations and add my own commentary. But it explains the truth of the problem and it explains how the government is not dealing with it adequetly.

drmiler

on Jan 11, 2005

Reply #27 By: sandy2 - 1/11/2005 5:12:55 PM
But reducing benefits and raising retirement age?

Tell me, why should people be able to retire so young. Its because they are selfish. SELFISH. I am not trying to say this because I'm trying to raise hairs on people's backs or anger anybody, but the people are selfish to the point that they are hurting the children. The children won't have what we have, because we are looting from them and we didn't have enough children to support us. We have a major problem, and for our children we need to sacrifice. Read the book The Coming Generational Storm by Laurence K. Kotlikoff and Scott Burns. When I finish reading it I will summerize their recomendations and add my own commentary. But it explains the truth of the problem and it explains how the government is not dealing with it adequetly.

WRONG!!! We are looting NOTHING! The government is the one who looted, not us. You must not be even close to retirement are you? Need to sacrifice? Why? That just means our kids (?) would need to make up the difference now! Just how much do you think you actually get from SS? It ain't all that much I'm here to tell you. And just why should someone who has *already* worked and payed into the system for 40-50 years have to wait even longer to retire?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!