privatization of social security

I am a bit skeptical about privatization. I wonder about these accounts being passed down to people's children and if that gives certain people an unfair advantage. Though we are all created equal but we are not always born into equality. I think money in the these funds is just one more thing that separates people in a time when unity is so critical.

Then, healthier genetic "lines" of people accrue wealth.

This privatization could tie up frivolous wealth that cannot be accessed. Also it makes immigrants have unfair disadvantages over the basic citizens who have inherited these accounts.

Also I think a portion of the money earned on the account should go back to a general social security to balance off the welfare disability aspects of society.

RexRed wrote:

I am a bit skeptical about privatization. I wonder about these accounts being passed down to people's children and if that gives certain people an unfair advantage. Though we are all created equal but we are not always born into equality. I think money in the these funds is just one more thing that separates people in a time when unity is so critical.

There may be plenty of reasons not to privatize but the one's you've listed aren't in that list IMO.

Quote:

Then, healthier genetic "lines" of people accrue wealth.

People from healthier genetic lines would be more likely to live longer and produce more healthy off-spring which means the accounts are more likely to be depleted and any money inherited would be split by more people. Healthier genetic lines would be probably be LESS likely to accumulate wealth.

Quote:

This privatization could tie up frivolous wealth that cannot be accessed. Also it makes immigrants have unfair disadvantages over the basic citizens who have inherited these accounts.

Owning property (i.e. a house) does the same thing. Should home ownership be banned? There are thousands of impediments that immigrants face. I don't see this as being anywhere near the top of the list.

Quote:

Also I think a portion of the money earned on the account should go back to a general social security to balance off the welfare disability aspects of society.

The disability side of SS is less than 16% of the total program and it isn't changed at all under any of the existing proposals.

if, as GWB says, the SS will go bust in x years how does his plans (as yet unknown, but involving privitization) resolve that problem?

The issue of healthy genetic lines of people accruing a fortune. They will most likely be independently wealthy and not even need to utilize the fund at all. So the fund will be passed down giving, yes, a child or family in America a social advantage. I am not opposed to this only when I see what the disadvantaged will not have.

The current system can be passed down too. If you have not worked long enough they will look at your parents and see if they paid for an extended period of time, did not collect long and if they are living.

If you live long, pay into the system and then in old age collect, it is much less taken from the account then if you are disabled young after not paying long into the system and should live a long life too. What is going to provide for these unfortunate souls?

If 16 percent of social security is disabled they are often disabled in youth and remain so for life. They are disabled for 30 to 40 years not 10 to 15 or 5 and have many more medical bills. How much can be in an account when you have taken sick like after only ten years of employment? Will that pay for the years of suffering to come?

The current system is more invisible. People pay into it but do not think about it so much. It has a flexibility built into it to care for those it was meant to serve... the average American.

Other than the ability to invest in the stock market, I think the basic architecture of the program should stay the same. It is meant to help all Americans and not just a certain "select". Social security is the way society shares and cares for itself. It needs to care for the whole body and not just certain members.

DEPENDS ON WHAT YOUR DEFINITION OF DECADE IS: Like many people, I find it maddening that the administration claims its Social Security privatization plan will only cost $754 billion over the next decade. In fact, the first decade of costs will be well over $1 trillion. The $754 billion figure comes from the fact that the program wouldn't start until 2009--which means it really only refers to the years between 2009 and 2014. That's the next decade, but obviously not the first decade of the program.

Anyway, I was stewing about this when I read that Cheney had used this bit of trickery on Fox News yesterday. Then I read the transcript for myself and was impressed that the interviewer, Chris Wallace, had actually pressed Cheney on precisely this point:

Quote:

WALLACE: The president got the debate over Social Security going strong this week, and my guess is people have a lot of questions. And I want to ask you some of the questions that we're hearing from people.

First of all, the cost of this program of putting in personal accounts: The White House says, for the next 10 years, the cost of starting the personal accounts, the transition costs, would be $754 billion, which is a little less than a lot of people had thought it would be.

My question is, isn't that misleading? Because under your plan, the accounts, the program wouldn't actually start til 2009. So, if you take the first full 10 years, when people can actually invest in the program, the cost is over $1 trillion, and for the following 10 years, it's $3.5 trillion.

Isn't it a lot more expensive?

CHENEY: Well, it all depends upon how we set up the program and phase it in over time. It's not going to all start next year, 2006, for example. It's phased in both in terms of age, as well as when we actually begin to allow people to set money aside into their personal accounts. There's a cap on that would be gradually elevated over time.

It is important to manage the fiscal impact of these transitions in an intelligent fashion, and we're well aware of that. And that's one of the reasons you do phase it in.

It's one of the reasons it's so important for us to start now on addressing these issues. And we have people running around saying, "Well, it's not going to be a problem for 30 years." If we start now, it'll be cheaper in the long run. We can phase it in over time, so it's fair and equitable to everybody who's affected by it. People have time to adjust. And we get the advantage of the time value of money going forward, to the extent that people have got savings they set aside.

So, the question here, I think, with respect to the dollar figure you've got, the estimate we've given is, in fact, the right estimate, going out over the next 10 years, given the way, in fact, we want to begin the program and phase it in as we increase the amount that people will be able to set aside.

So I'll take that as a yes, Mr. Vice President. As in, "yes, it is misleading." ...

posted 10:51 a.m.