Poll, Invest or not?

[ukulele]

Should we invest Social Security in the American stock Market?
How about the banks and money markets?

Maybe you should read this first... http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03/enron.tapes/index.html

Or this... http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

[rraehal]

I think if properly managed it would be possible to improve social security with investing.

The problem is that that simply will not happen. Our government has already got into social security so many times that they are contributing to the problem.

It simply will not work.

Maybe social secuirty should be changed in a manner that makes it similar to a 401K with limited investment options that minimize risks. Maybe private social security is the way to go.

I am not an economist so my opinion may be off base. I do understand enough to know how things work but thats as far as it goes.

[EDIT]
I voted yes because I think something needs to be done. Social Security may be gine by the time I am old enough to receive it. I still have 49years before I qualify for payments,

[Johnny Fist]

It may be gone? It will be gone is more like it. You can kiss all of that money good-bye.

[j.m@talk]

More gambling with public funds ? :eek:

Time for another Civil War me finks :rolleyes:

[mireland]

investing in the stock market only causes people to lose their jobs...:mad:

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by mireland
investing in the stock market only causes people to lose their jobs...:mad:

Not if ya in the bankin' biz it don't ........ well if yas owns the bank like :D

[tantone]

Here's the tough pill to swallow: I'm getting social security taxes taken out of every paycheck. When I go to retire, I won't get that same amount of money back. I'll get maybe 70%, at the most.

If the government can't give me back what I will have already put into it, then I say give ME the **** money at every paycheck and I'll ensure that I get it back. Even a standard savings account would produce a better outcome than the social security program offers me right now.

[herosrest]

The essense of the US issue with National debt is no different to taking any other type of loan.
As long as the interest payments can be managed comfortably the squabbling is really about what the interest payments could have been used for.
However with your administration committed to driving up interest rates - problems will follow. :(

?? Who benefits from high interest rates? Can someone remind me.

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by tantone
If the government can't give me back what I will have already put into it, then I say give ME the **** money at every paycheck

The gov't would give you the money back if you knew the method of releasing it .......

Get an accountant ......... Prefrably one that has spent time )-|

[Moliere]

Social Security should be scrapped. There are too many baby boomers and not enough people behind them to support the system when they all retire. They are at their peak earning years so the system survives until they start retiring. Retirement should be left up to individuals and not government mandated.

[Johnny Fist]

Do you honestly believe that people can save their own money? Look at the fiascos people have with credit cards. Social Security is necessary. It needs reformed though, I'll tell you that. How? If I had the answers I wouldn't be sitting here at 1:30 in the afternoon carrying on about it.

[Moliere]

It doesn't matter if you think people are too incompetent to plan their own futures. I am against the coercion involved with the Social Security system. The government will throw you in jail for not paying your 15% social security tax. I don't need that kind of nanny state holding a gun to my head.

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by Johnny Fist
It needs reformed though,

long? country in Been :rolleyes:

It needs reforming, it requires reform, it has been reformed,

No can do It needs reformed :-@

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by Moliere
It doesn't matter if you think people are too incompetent to plan their own futures. I am against the coercion involved with the Social Security system. The government will throw you in jail for not paying your 15% social security tax. I don't need that kind of nanny state holding a gun to my head.

Da airport is that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Don't come to the UK ;)

[Johnny Fist]

Originally posted by Moliere
It doesn't matter if you think people are too incompetent to plan their own futures. I am against the coercion involved with the Social Security system. The government will throw you in jail for not paying your 15% social security tax. I don't need that kind of nanny state holding a gun to my head.

Actually it does matter. Given that 90% of the people in this country are morons think of what sort of poverty they would live in when they retired. What sort of effect do you think that would have on the economy?

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by Johnny Fist
Given that 90% of the people in this country are morons

The rest of the world have been trying to tell you guys that for years .......... :p

[Johnny Fist]

HAHAH!!!

You're right!!!

[Moliere]

What sort of effect do you think that would have on the economy?

Pragmatic answer: What kind of effect do you think having 15% of everyone's income stolen from them has on the economy? Just so the government can run it through a couple of bureaucracies and have maybe 50% of the money make it to the end user.

Moral answer: Why should I be forced to support people I don't even know? Why should I be threatened with jail if I don't hand over this money for a program that I will see no benefit from? One could call that slavery.

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by Moliere
One could call that slavery.

Land of the free innit it?

NO IT AINT .......... False advertising that innit ? YES IT IS.

My heart Bleeds :-@

[Moliere]

Land of the free innit it?

Nothing to offer besides using this as yet another chance to bash the U.S.? At least you're consistent on all of your posts.

My pragmatic and moral answers were not U.S. based. They refer to anyone being taxed against their will. Using a U.S. reference Democrats will say that if the program isn't working let's give it more money so it can start working. Republicans will say if the program isn't working let's give it more money and run it like a business. Libertarians ask why we have the program to begin with and is it a moral function of government.

[j.m@talk]

Ok then ...... Why not move ? Simple Solution :rolleyes:

[Johnny Fist]

I think that when the generations are more closely populated its an excellent system. However, thats not the case now. I think the current situation makes it necessary to mend a broken system. That doesn't mean the system is evil and needs to be abolished.

[j.m@talk]

Add dental/optical/aural & medical for all while your at it :t

You can't call any of it free...... just "At no extra cost" :t

[Moliere]

I'm not interested in moving. I would rather reform the system.

"No extra cost"?? How can taxes (direct or indirect) not be considered a cost? Isn't Adam Smith your countryman?

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by Moliere

"No extra cost"??

Meaning no more than you are paying now.

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by Adam Smith, between 1723 & 1790 so obviously not here
Virtue is more to be feared than vice,
because its excesses are not subject to
the regulation of conscience.

Right on Adam


:-@

[zybch]

I have the perfect solution for all those oldies drawing money out of SS.

I suggest everyone go rent the movie Soylent Green.

[zybch]

Originally posted by Johnny Fist
I think that when the generations are more closely populated its an excellent system. However, thats not the case now. I think the current situation makes it necessary to mend a broken system. That doesn't mean the system is evil and needs to be abolished.

Its a good system while capitalism is working, but as soon as it starts failing, with companies paying no tax and less and less people in proceeding generations, the whole welfare system begins to hemorage money. Capitalism is dead, but people just don't realise it yet, even though they can clearly see the signs all around, they just can't admit it to themselves.

[ukulele]

Some of the old fuddy duds who were around back in 1935, when FDR started the Social Security system, remember that it originally started with a fund that would grow and compound interest enough to sustain itself by the time it was 30 years old. By now it could have run itself without further addition or at least a drastic reduction in the contributions. It was originally an independent organization that members contributed to and in effect had a share in the fund. Eventually that was changed by Truman (a democrat) who in 1946 abolished the Social Security Board that over saw the fund and created the Social Security Administration. This effectively took control of the fund and incorporated it into the general fund which was in need of ready cash due to the war effort. After a number of other Democrats mucked around with it (most notably, Kennedy and Johnston), Regan got got into it when he discovered that it was nearly bankrupt in the early 80's. A commission was formed that looked into the matter after sponging off the taxpayers for as long as they could a recommendation was made that was finally signed into law by Clinton in 1995 to do just that. Now here we are again with another president that wants to fix it by cutting the promised benefits to the people who paid into it for all these years and in place of that he wants to start another administration which will cost even more money that will manage the taxpayers money for them by investing it in the stock market where of course big business will be the only ones who have access to it.

The question we have to ask ourselves is, can we trust big business to safeguard our retirement funds more then we can trust the Government? Now remember too that Federal Employees who will over see this investment have their own separate retirement fund which of course is doing fine, so the same people managing the general fund don't have to worry if they screw up while investing someone elses money. Think about it.

[Moliere]

ukulele, that's why I am saying the whole system should be scrapped. I don't want the government investing my 15% in the stock market any more then I want them taking it and putting it in a mattress somewhere for 45 years. It's not their business to handle my retirement. People who have already paid into the system should have their money refunded and the rest of us should be left to do what we want with our own money.

[herosrest]

Originally posted by Moliere
Nothing to offer besides using this as yet another chance to bash the U.S.? At least you're consistent on all of your posts.

My pragmatic and moral answers were not U.S. based. They refer to anyone being taxed against their will. Using a U.S. reference Democrats will say that if the program isn't working let's give it more money so it can start working. Republicans will say if the program isn't working let's give it more money and run it like a business. Libertarians ask why we have the program to begin with and is it a moral function of government.

l understand, l think, where you are coming from here and will point out that that battle was fought some time ago in your war of lndependance.The issue was who had the right to collect taxes and not whether they should bbe paid for at all.

[j.m@talk]

It apears to me that Moliere doesn't want to pay taxes, however expects the folks who have been promised state funding to just accept the fact that they been stiffed.

I quite enjoy our system..... You either work or ya don't ....... Ya still get money. You just get an awful lot more if you work & are quite bright.

Heathcare at no extra cost, subsidised optical & dental..... Some complain bitterly about it, others In ignorance belittle it ....... BUT the fact is it works & is better than NOTHING ...... Of course you can elect private anything you like ..... However you will not get a tax break on it...... If you want to pay less taxes in the UK ....... GET AN ACCOUNTANT :-@

[werz]

Does the social security cover unemployment benefits, or is it just for old age pensions?

[Moliere]

JM, did you see my previous post "People who have already paid into the system should have their money refunded"? That hardly sounds like I want people to "just accept the fact that they been stiffed". I think the government has a moral responsibility to repay the money they have stolen for this bankrupt system.

Werz, social secuirty is for old age pensions. We have massive other programs covering unemployment, healthcare, walfare, etc. All in all, I lose at least 50% of my income to these various social causes.

[herosrest]

You won't get rid off SS unless the System goes.
It is one of the reasons how your leaders get elected.
It won't be sorted out until attitudes change from 'have and have not' to 'one for all.

[j.m@talk]

No a cash refund isn't acceptable ........ They must provide the benefits as originally promised.

The term "Social Security" means different things in different countries....... We change our terminoligy about every 3 years :rolleyes:

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by herosrest
You won't get rid off SS unless.........

Well he shot himself will that not do it ? ;)

[herosrest]

Yeah - but it was only in the mirror. :D