[NYCFarmboy]

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6564

by Allan H. Ryskind
Posted Feb 10, 2005

Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.) was asked at a CATO conference in Washington yesterday whether he had persuaded any Democrats to back his plan to rescue Social Security from its financial troubles. Under his legislation (HR 4851), no new taxes would be needed to pay for "transition costs," participation in the new system would be voluntary and individuals would be allowed to divert a portion of their payroll tax into a mutual fund.

A questioner from the audience, stressing his own Democratic credentials, said he believed Ryan's plan should attract members of his own party and wondered whether the Wisconsin lawmaker had secured any Democratic sponsors. Ryan said he had been working with friends on the "other side of the aisle" who were favorable toward his solution, but he faced an enormous problem: intense pressure on his colleagues from the minority leadership.

"We were in planning stages [with friendly Democrats]," said Ryan. But each essentially told him: "I like what you're doing. I like this bill. I think it's the right way to go. But my party leadership will break my back. The retribution that they are promising us is as great as I have ever seen. We can't do it."

Ryan said he believed the only thing that can assure passage is an outpouring from America's grassroots.

[OldManMac]

It won't pass anyway, as there are Republicans that are against this charade of handing more money to Wall Street, as well as Democrats. As far as an outpouring of America's grassroots, that's going to show even more that it isn't going to pass.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by KarlG:
It won't pass anyway, as there are Republicans that are against this charade of handing more money to Wall Street, as well as Democrats. As far as an outpouring of America's grassroots, that's going to show even more that it isn't going to pass.

I take it you are opposed to some of us having the voluntary option of investing some of our own money then and just want us to have to suffer in old age when the system is bankrupt?

The system is a time bomb based ponzi scheme currently that is not sustainable, to prevent people from even having the option of taking some of our ss funds and investing it how we see fit I think is pretty senseless.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I take it you are opposed to some of us having the voluntary option of investing some of our own money then and just want us to have to suffer in old age when the system is bankrupt?

OK, you can voluntarily invest some of your own money. I'm sure KarlG wouldn't mind either.

Oh, but you shouldn't do it with SS taxes, because that's currently being used to pay people in their retirement. What, you don't want to meet your obligations? OK, how about you let me take the money that I paid for the Iraq war and invest it for my retirement. I'd also like my money that went to Armstrong Williams. And that thing that Bush wears on his back, whatever it is. Thanks.

[itai195]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I take it you are opposed to some of us having the voluntary option of investing some of our own money then and just want us to have to suffer in old age when the system is bankrupt?

The system is a time bomb based ponzi scheme currently that is not sustainable, to prevent people from even having the option of taking some of our ss funds and investing it how we see fit I think is pretty senseless.

Perhaps you can explain how doing what you describe in the first paragraph would prevent what you describe in the second paragraph. The White House seems unable to.

Besides that, you are a Bush supporter and you're complaining about political retribution? Talk about pots and, um, kettles.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by BRussell:
OK, you can voluntarily invest some of your own money. I'm sure KarlG wouldn't mind either.

Oh, but you shouldn't do it with SS taxes, because that's currently being used to pay people in their retirement. What, you don't want to meet your obligations? OK, how about you let me take the money that I paid for the Iraq war and invest it for my retirement. I'd also like my money that went to Armstrong Williams. And that thing that Bush wears on his back, whatever it is. Thanks.

so you really don't care then that the system is facing bankruptcy when people my age & younger retire?

I only have an obligation to pay ss taxes for retiree's currently?

You should put that in a DNC ad.



I just don't understand why people are being so ignorant of the real problem.

A voluntary program for those who choose voluntarily to participate that takes only PART of the contribution people are now paying, yet those who hate Bush have welded onto this issue ONLY because Bush is the one proposing it.

What is it someone said, those on the left are forsaking sanity for consistancy just to oppose Bush.

It is incredulous that anyone could be opposed to fixing this horrific problem for younger people today.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
I take it you are opposed to some of us having the voluntary option of investing some of our own money then and just want us to have to suffer in old age when the system is bankrupt?

The system is a time bomb based ponzi scheme currently that is not sustainable, to prevent people from even having the option of taking some of our ss funds and investing it how we see fit I think is pretty senseless.

You can't have it both ways, making as much as you can on the side while still dipping into the Federal system.

If you want out of the system then work for that. Work to make an opt-out provision in the chages they are proposing so that you would never have to pay into Social Security again. I would fully support such an option.

I would also support means testing, so that if current changes are implemented, and you do really well in the private stock market, you would not get any money from the Federal system.

In or out, make your choice. I for one will NOT divert any of my salary away from the Social Security system.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
You can't have it both ways, making as much as you can on the side while still dipping into the Federal system.

If you want out of the system then work for that. Work to make an opt-out provision in the chages they are proposing so that you would never have to pay into Social Security again. I would fully support such an option.

I would also support means testing, so that if current changes are implemented, and you do really well in the private stock market, you would not get any money from the Federal system.

In or out, make your choice. I for one will NOT divert any of my salary away from the Social Security system.

[NYCFarmboy]

an opt-out would be a great thing actually.

[itai195]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
It is incredulous that anyone could be opposed to fixing this horrific problem for younger people today.

Spin city. I think there's a problem, I don't see how Bush's solution fixes it.

[osiris]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
so you really don't care then that the system is facing bankruptcy when people my age & younger retire?

I only have an obligation to pay ss taxes for retiree's currently?

You should put that in a DNC ad.

I just don't understand why people are being so ignorant of the real problem.

A voluntary program for those who choose voluntarily to participate that takes only PART of the contribution people are now paying, yet those who hate Bush have welded onto this issue ONLY because Bush is the one proposing it.

What is it someone said, those on the left are forsaking sanity for consistancy just to oppose Bush.

It is incredulous that anyone could be opposed to fixing this horrific problem for younger people today.

What a load of fear mongering - 'horrific problem' - OMG we're gonna die!

Social Security is fine as it is - this illusionary crisis is the work of an expert magician attempting to pull an Enron/Harken/Arbusto move on your money.

Put it this way, putting 3% away into a government insured account that earns interest will be secure. However, if that money is placed in the wavering hands of Wall Street you enter the domain of gambling, which is not secure.

So this is not anti bush, pro bush, etc, it's pro common sense. But now that you mentioned it... The amount we've spent in Iraq/Afghanistan would more than cover the SS 'crisis' occuring 20 years from now - mb we should cut the military budget by 1% now.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
so you really don't care then that the system is facing bankruptcy when people my age & younger retire?

How do you infer that? The system gets more bankrupt if people start taking money out of the system, not less. But go ahead and invest some of your money in retirement, I do. Everyone should. Nothing says you can't do that. There are lots of tax advantages to doing so.

As itai says, not even the Bush administration is claiming any more that their privatization ideas will improve the SS situation. They talk about that as a separate issue.

I only have an obligation to pay ss taxes for retiree's currently?

Ah-yup. That's how it works. Actually, you're overpaying if you're paying SS taxes right now. We don't even need all that money. And Bush isn't sure if we should pay you back for your excessive generosity. Cool, huh?

[thunderous_funker]

Well, thank our everlovin' zombie Lord Jeebus that GOP dissenters who balk at privatizing SS will be met with welcome arms and be praised endlessly for their ethical stamina by the Bush administration.



Hint: there is only one party in America that can even claim to have party discipline and it ain't the one with the Donkey as a mascot.

Anyone remember last year when a universally popular bill to restore some veteran's benefits was declared "bad" by the White House and all GOP congressmen were ordered to vote against it--EVEN WHEN SOME OF THEM HAD AUTHORED OR CO-SPONSORED THE BILL!!

I'm sure Democrats would love to have that kind of loyalty to the "party line", but let's face it--organizing "the Left" is like herding cats and unlikely to happen any time soon.

[olePigeon]

I'm against it because it's completely obvious at what's happening. It's a crucial step towards extending the divide between the rich and poor. The kind of support from "grassroots" America that Ryan wants is the kind that pushes for class division: Rich men at the top, poor working class at the bottom. If I'm not mistaken, the southern grassrooted American exploited the "colored" people to do the work and meet the demands of society.

Allowing people even the option of investing their money is only going to end up with two things: Rich people staying rich, and people who don't have business investing their own money becoming poor and not leaving anything behind for their families. It is their children who will be the poor 40-something shmucks working at Wal-Mart and McDonald's to serve your rich ass.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
A questioner from the audience, stressing his own Democratic credentials, said he believed Ryan's plan should attract members of his own party and wondered whether the Wisconsin lawmaker had secured any Democratic sponsors.

How much did the White House pay this guy?

[Mithras]

Oh give it up folks. NYCFarmboy is a troll. He's not here to have a discussion. He just posts articles that he feels are maximally likely to get a rise out of liberals.

[macintologist]

If any of you want the truth, and wanna weed through all the partisan bullshit, just turn to Factcheck.org

Bush's State of the Union: Social Security "Bankruptcy?" - That term could give the wrong idea. Bush also makes private accounts sound like a sure thing, which they are not.

MoveOn.org Social Security Ad - Liberal group's ad falsely claims Bush plan would cut benefits 46 percent.

Does Social Security Really Face an $11 Trillion Deficit? - Bush and Cheney say yes. But actuaries say the figure is "likely to mislead" the public on the system's true financial state.

Social Security Ads: Risk or Protection? - Pro-Bush group's first TV ad states the problem correctly. But the AARP uses a misleading photo.

Kerry Falsely Claims Bush Plans To Cut Social Security Benefits It's not Bush's plan, and it wouldn't cut benefits.

Whatever Bush does, I think it will be fine. Thanks to Factcheck, I can safely make that assertion. Call me a tool, fine. But being a tool of Factcheck is far superior to being a tool of X partisan blog.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by osiris:
The amount we've spent in Iraq/Afghanistan would more than cover the SS 'crisis' occuring 20 years from now - mb we should cut the military budget by 1% now.

Social Security is not constitutionally mandated. The military spending is, in Article 1 Section 8. Military spending can be reduced or increased, but you should at least recognize the difference in character of the funds.

Additionally, the Federal Thrift Savings Plan, which people above refer to as an Enron/Arbusto scam or Wall Street Gambling, returns anywhere from 4 to 16%.

Today's middle income workers can expect real rates of return between 1% and 2%. Today's highest paid workers can expect real rates of return below 1% and may even face negative rates of return if born after 1975.

Read that again: NEGATIVE RATE OF RETURN. Middle income workers get 1 to 2 percent return. Shoot, certificates of deposit do better than that.

Enron accounting wasn't an Enron invention- they learned it from Congress and Social Security. Changing Social Security is not a move -to- Enron accounting, but a move towards financial stability.

Don't think of yourselves, think of your children: wouldn't you like them to be able to have a monthly benefit four times what today's benefit is, and have it come from their own money instead of burdening your grandchildren to pay for it?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Oh give it up folks. NYCFarmboy is a troll. He's not here to have a discussion. He just posts articles that he feels are maximally likely to get a rise out of liberals.

so discuss why you are opposed to saving social security then?

I'd like to know for reasons other than Bush supports saving it as to why you are opposed to reforming SS and bringing it up to date to meet the ticking time bomb of age demographics which will bankrupt it before I can retire.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:


so discuss why you are opposed to saving social security then?

I'd like to know for reasons other than Bush supports saving it as to why you are opposed to reforming SS and bringing it up to date to meet the ticking time bomb of age demographics which will bankrupt it before I can retire.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, Social Security reform and private investment accounts are two separate issues.

The fundamental problem with SS is that, using the current funding model, there will not be enough people paying into the system to keep it sustainable. So, to fix the SS problem you need to change the way the system is funded or change the way the system pays out funds. I would prefer a solution that works from both sides. Have a small, salary-adjusted increase in the payroll contribution (addressing how the system is funded) AND implementing means-testing and increased retirement age for the recipients of SS funds (addressing how the system pays out funds).

Private investment accounts are a way for individual to supplement SS retirement funds in the investment market. There is NOTHING preventing individuals from doing this now--This is what I do in addition to what I contribute to the SS system. So, to say the two issues are related is disingenuous, NYCFarmboy. The only way the could be related is if Congress changes the laws to permit private investment accounts and doesn't do anything else to fix the system: In that case, the implementation of private investment accounts--taking money away from the SS system--will increase the rate at which the SS system will encounter financial ruin.

So, to reiterate, Social Security reform and private investment accounts are two separate issues. One can fix the SS system WITHOUT resorting to the implementation of private investment accounts. So, please don't continue to argue the two issues as if they were one. If you want to advocate private investment accounts, by all means do so. But to do so as a fix for the ailing SS system is a fraudulent claim to make.

Like I have said before, if you want out of the SS system, by all means work to make that a possibility. I would whole-heartedly support a move to allow for an opt-out provision in the SS system. If people feel they can succeed outside of the national safety net then let them.

<edited to fix typo's.>

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by osiris:
What a load of fear mongering - 'horrific problem' - OMG we're gonna die!

Stop drama queening, no one ever said that. The SS system IS collapsing though.

Social Security is fine as it i

You are kidding right? Do you have ANY clue what is going on here? -

this illusionary crisis is the work of an expert magician attempting to pull an Enron/Harken/Arbusto move on your money.

LOL! Talk about illusionary!

Get your tin foil hats out folks.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Like I have said before, if you want out of the SS system, by all means work to make that a possibility. I would whole-heartedly support a move to allow for an opt-out provision in the SS system. If people feel they can succeed outside of the national safety net then let them.

This would never work - even Dubya acknowledges this by proposing severe restrictions on how private accounts can be invested. If opting out were allowed, you'd have a bunch of people going broke and ending up on the public dole without having made a contribution to the SS system.

[thunderous_funker]

Why not create a national 401(k) plan? A personal retirement available to anyone who doesn't have one offered by their employers.

Creating that in addition to the risk-free investment in SS would do a lot towards securing Americans for retirement.

Why gut the only sure thing American seniors have? That makes zero sense...unless, of course, you realize the whole thing was hatched by Wall Street interests from the beginning.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by zigzag:
This would never work - even Dubya acknowledges this by proposing severe restrictions on how private accounts can be invested. If opting out were allowed, you'd have a bunch of people going broke and ending up on the public dole without having made a contribution to the SS system.

People often talk about opting out of different gov't programs, and it's really no different than liberals saying they don't want to pay for Bush's wars. It's just not the way our system works.

But I wonder how it would work if that was our system. Not SS per se, but more generally. Maybe when we filed our taxes we could check off where we wanted our money to go - military, social security, health care, etc. Rather than the gov't deciding, the people would decide essentially by voting for specific programs. Each program could make its case directly to the people that they need more funding, etc.

It's probably a very, very bad idea. But it certainly wouldn't be my first.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Rather than the gov't deciding, the people would decide essentially by voting for specific programs. Each program could make its case directly to the people that they need more funding, etc.

How's that old bumper sticker go? Here it is:

[BRussell]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Why not create a national 401(k) plan? A personal retirement available to anyone who doesn't have one offered by their employers.

Creating that in addition to the risk-free investment in SS would do a lot towards securing Americans for retirement.

There are retirement plans available to everyone. But I think you're talking about making a mandatory account, or perhaps even having the government seed the account.

How about this: Rather than these big per-child tax credits we currently get, take that money and stick it in a retirement plan for the child. The child's parents and the child when grown up and working could then put extra money into it. But starting at birth would really maximize the growth of the account because it would be so long. ***

In the meantime, this it what I'd like to see: Take the fricking trust fund and stop spending it. Put it into Wall Street, for all I care. But don't spend any more of it. that would go a long, long way toward helping the situation. Yes, it would show our deficit for what it really is, but good. That would put more pressure on irresponsible politicians, like the present Republican party especially.

***[edit] Not my idea: David Brooks talks about it here.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
In the meantime, this it what I'd like to see: Take the fricking trust fund and stop spending it. Put it into Wall Street, for all I care. But don't spend any more of it. that would go a long, long way toward helping the situation. Yes, it would show our deficit for what it really is, but good. That would put more pressure on irresponsible politicians, like the present Republican party especially.

Amazing how long it took someone in this discussion to point out the obvious.

Thank you.

Social Security works and together with the GI Bill are probably the greatest reasons for Americas emergence as a stable and prosperous liberal capitialist nation.

This "crisis" is manufactured and complete bunk. Fire every politician who can't keep their hands off the Trust Fund and leave the program alone.

[vmarks]

Precisely what trust fund are you talking about?

There is no trust fund. SS funds go into the general fund and are spent at Congress' whim, as they always have been.

Making funds so that they are no longer subject to Congressional whim is fiscally responsible, and is a part of what this push to reform SS entails.

Making benefits so that they are generated by your participation in an investment fund instead of pickpocketing future generations IS the fiscally responsible thing to do.

Since we're talking about some form of basis on the Federal Thrift Savings plan, let's look at the TSP.

http://www.tsp.gov/rates/fundsheets.html

Each TSP participant has a choice of investing in five investment funds. They are the G Fund, F Fund, C Fund, S Fund, and I Fund. Review the details of each fund to fully understand its potential risks and benefits.

G Fund Government Securities Investment Fund

F Fund Fixed Income Index Investment Fund

C Fund Common Stock Index Investment Fund

S Fund Small Capitalization Stock Index Investment Fund. Click here to learn more about the change to the index that the S Fund tracks.

I Fund International Stock Index Investment Fund. Click here to view the reasons why the change in the I Fund share price does not always correspond to the change in the EAFE Index which it tracks.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Precisely what trust fund are you talking about?

There is no trust fund. SS funds go into the general fund and are spent at Congress' whim, as they always have been.

Exactly, and I'm saying they shouldn't be treated that way. We're taking in more SS money than we need right now, which in principle is the right thing to do because those of us working now will need that money if we are to maintain our SS benefits. It makes perfect sense. But what are we doing - we're spending that money. And at the same time, we're cutting taxes as if we're not spending it.

So let's not spend it. Let's take all of that excess money and invest it. Even sticking it under the mattress would be better than what we're doing now.

The Republicans are spending like mad, including the SS money that Bush promised during the 2000 campaign wouldn't be spent, and they're also cutting taxes like mad, and then complaining that we don't have enough money to afford SS security, so we better do something about it! It's absurd and it's despicable.

[typoon]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
I'm against it because it's completely obvious at what's happening. It's a crucial step towards extending the divide between the rich and poor. The kind of support from "grassroots" America that Ryan wants is the kind that pushes for class division: Rich men at the top, poor working class at the bottom. If I'm not mistaken, the southern grassrooted American exploited the "colored" people to do the work and meet the demands of society.

Allowing people even the option of investing their money is only going to end up with two things: Rich people staying rich, and people who don't have business investing their own money becoming poor and not leaving anything behind for their families. It is their children who will be the poor 40-something shmucks working at Wal-Mart and McDonald's to serve your rich ass.

What? They would have there OWN money to invest Rich and poor alike. It would be taken out already from the TAXES they pay. via the Payroll tax and though what is taken out for SS. Instead of going towards SS it would allow ANYONE rich or the schlub working at McDonald's or Walmart to put that money that would have been slated to go into SS to go into their OWN Account.

Sorry but money that I pay towards SS right now does nothing for me when I get older. Will it even be there? maybe. If I put it into a fund of my own and that fund makes say 16% return By the time I'm ready to retire I'll have enough to NOT need SS. Also this money that is taken out would be tax free.

[typoon]

What I don't understand is the people who are so against this. The plan will need some refinement but the overall idea is good. Besides that it's VOLUNTARY. If you don't want to be in it you can pay into the staus quo. To those so against it. Do you have a 401k or anything like that? Why do you have it? I mean Social security is going to be there when you retire anyway right? so why have a 401K mutal fund or anything like that?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by typoon:
What I don't understand is the people who are so against this. The plan will need some refinement but the overall idea is good. Besides that it's VOLUNTARY. If you don't want to be in it you can pay into the staus quo. To those so against it. Do you have a 401k or anything like that? Why do you have it? I mean Social security is going to be there when you retire anyway right? so why have a 401K mutal fund or anything like that?

People are opposed to it because it hurts a good system. When I put money in my 401k/403b, it doesn't take money from someone else's benefits. If Bush's plan would actually pay for these accounts rather than taking money out of the current already-in-debt budget, then we could at least have a real debate about it.

[typoon]

Originally posted by BRussell:
People are opposed to it because it hurts a good system. When I put money in my 401k/403b, it doesn't take money from someone else's benefits. If Bush's plan would actually pay for these accounts rather than taking money out of the current already-in-debt budget, then we could at least have a real debate about it.

They system or the intention of the system was good about 50 years ago. It's past it's time and needs to be reformed. So far Bush is the only one who has made any attempt to try and reform this. Everyone else seems to want the status quo. If it's supposed to go bankrupt in the next 20-50 years as they say why are there not any plans from any legislator on either side of the isle? So far it only seems like the president is the only one who is making the effort to come up with something and he is hoping that either a plan that is better will come about or that those in his party and hopefully some from the other party go along with his plan.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by typoon:
They system or the intention of the system was good about 50 years ago. It's past it's time and needs to be reformed. So far Bush is the only one who has made any attempt to try and reform this. Everyone else seems to want the status quo. If it's supposed to go bankrupt in the next 20-50 years as they say why are there not any plans from any legislator on either side of the isle? So far it only seems like the president is the only one who is making the effort to come up with something and he is hoping that either a plan that is better will come about or that those in his party and hopefully some from the other party go along with his plan.

Bush is so concerned about the SS problem, huh? We currently have a SS surplus that will last for another 15 years. The system also has bonds that can be redeemed for another 30 years after that. That's approximately 45 years of surplus.

On the other hand, right now, this very minute, the general federal budget is in deficit, due directly to tax-cut and spending-increase legislation advocated by Bush and the Republicans in Congress.

Forgive me if I don't think they really cares about deficits in federal programs.

Everyone knows exactly what to do, and it could be done in 20 minutes. There are plenty of changes that a majority of Democrats and Republicans could agree on. But they're not on the table right now, Bush's plan is.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Bush is so concerned about the SS problem, huh? We currently have a SS surplus that will last for another 15 years. The system also has bonds that can be redeemed for another 30 years after that. That's approximately 45 years of surplus.

After which... what? It seems that both parties are very selective about what luxuries they want their children and grandchildren to pay the price for.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Millennium:
After which... what? It seems that both parties are very selective about what luxuries they want their children and grandchildren to pay the price for.

After which it goes into deficit. That's currently projected to be something like 2050, though under rosy economic scenarios, the SS system never goes into deficit. In the meantime, it's 2005, and the federal government is currently in deficit. Not a projection, not in 50 years, but now. And even if we look into the next 50 years, health care is projected to dwarf SS as a spending problem. All those old people coming around the bend are also going to need medical spending.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by typoon:
They system or the intention of the system was good about 50 years ago. It's past it's time and needs to be reformed. So far Bush is the only one who has made any attempt to try and reform this. Everyone else seems to want the status quo. If it's supposed to go bankrupt in the next 20-50 years as they say why are there not any plans from any legislator on either side of the isle? So far it only seems like the president is the only one who is making the effort to come up with something and he is hoping that either a plan that is better will come about or that those in his party and hopefully some from the other party go along with his plan.

The implementation of private investment accounts is NOT a way to fundamentally reform the SS system.

The fundamental problem with SS is that there are too few paying into the system to support those who will be taking out of it. So, to fundamentally fix SS you need to change the inflows or outflows of moneys, ideally both.

Changing inflows:
--increase contributions from payroll tax
--Do not let Congress borrow against Social Security receipts
--Reformulate the pool of SS receipts such that the government invests them by purchasing it's own interest-bearing bonds

Changing outflows:
--Means tests individuals
--increase retirement age
--offer a time-limited withdrawal option

Some combination of thse changes, and likely others, could keep the current system working for the forseeable future WITHOUT any need to resorting to private investment accounts. They are a nice idea for individuals to supplement their SS payout--I have private investments for this purpose--but they should not be a substitute for the SS system.

[mitchell_pgh]

My predictions if they implemented an opt out feature for SS:

1) The current SS system would fail much faster [forget 2040]. Fewer $$$'s entering in to the system to offset the enormous cost of the baby boomers.

2) The rich would become richer. The wealthy will invest the money... they don't need social security anyway.

3) The people that didn't know any better would keep their money in (while the system collapses)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
My predictions if they implemented an opt out feature for SS:

1) The current SS system would fail much faster [forget 2040]. Fewer $$$'s entering in to the system to offset the enormous cost of the baby boomers.

2) The rich would become richer. The wealthy will invest the money... they don't need social security anyway.

3) The people that didn't know any better would keep their money in (while the system collapses)

I guess it depends on the numbers who opt out. Obviously, if people are opting out of contributing they are also opting out of receiving. The question then becomes do the decreased inflows (from fewer contributors) meet or exceed the demands from the remaining payees. All you need is a balance of inflows and outflows to keep the system stable.

(That's a verys simplistic explanation but covers the issue well enough.)