JL- So why not have a choice? Each person would be obliged to take a certain amount of money from his salary, and either put in social security, or have a choice of investments. Or maybe a combination of both.
I understand what you are saying about many people not having the discipline to save by themselves. My concept, I believe, would work to the satisfaction of all concerned.
My 401k program consistently leads us to stocks that make very small returns. I have read that the same sort of philosophy would guide SS investment options; that, in short, your investments would have only small returns. I believe they were not planning an open system where one could invest in anything one chose, but a select program they decided on in advance.
I have no objection to allowing people to invest the money on their own, but there should be some check on that sort of thing. If a young person consistently loses the capital, they ought to be sidled back to the old way. In any case, SS will not be cheaper to the public under such a system. It costs money for new programs and expanded beaurocracy to keep it alive.
dyslexia wrote:not really, I don't really give a ****.
I have nothing substantial to say...
I simply adore this quote!
Now that corporations are giving up on pension plans, workers will become dependent on the success of 401k investments. If the stockmarket does not do well at the time of their retirement, they may not fare too well. I've got my state pension, in addition social security and mutual fund investments (never messed with individual stocks and bonds), and property. So if one fails I have others to fall back on. But I've been lucky. SO many people have only their social security, and their economic position is not something they're "guilty" of. Their personalities, social class culture, life experiences, circumstances, etc. have resulted in such positions. By the same token I am not a multi-millionare, by no fault of my own--that is not in my nature. We form societies not as feeding grounds for the rich to thrive off the work of the poor; we come together for collective security (we ARE, after all collective animals unable to survive alone without society and culture). When I paid into social security I understand that to be my DUES as a member of this collectivity. I would have paid even if I knew I would not receive benefits personally; not to have people starving en masse on the streets IS a social benefit to me.
Nobody else has handled public funds better than the government. We always hear that the government cannot compete with private institutions for efficiency and results. Yet, each time government programs are privatized, the result has been less service and higher cost to the public. Since Clinton and the Republican congress reorganized welfare and made private charities bear more and more of the cost, poverty has increased and continues to increase.
edgar- There are good charities, and bad charities. There are some that use most of the funds that are collected for the purpose that it was intended, and their are others that are just as, or more wasteful than the government. It is up to each individual to decide, for themselves, where their hard earned money would do the most good.
Not so, but I don't expect you ever to see that.
I would like to be able to "earmark" where my taxes go--and that is a complex matter--since the public would be bombarded by requests to favor this or that group or cause. And we know how gullible the public can be. But I certainly would like to compete with the porkbarreling antics of congress. AND I would like to decide whether or not my contributions would support military actions. But that is all very problematical.
I would rather that Washington's elected officials make the decisions and that the public be more enlightened to select and support the more rational, civic-minded and humane of politicians. By my vote I say, in effect, how my money should be spent.
Beautifully said, JLN. Thats it, exactly - a nice demonstration of good, old-fashioned decency there.
JLNobody wrote:Now that corporations are giving up on pension plans, workers will become dependent on the success of 401k investments. If the stockmarket does not do well at the time of their retirement, they may not fare too well. I've got my state pension, in addition social security and mutual fund investments (never messed with individual stocks and bonds), and property. So if one fails I have others to fall back on. But I've been lucky. SO many people have only their social security, and their economic position is not something they're "guilty" of. Their personalities, social class culture, life experiences, circumstances, etc. have resulted in such positions. By the same token I am not a multi-millionare, by no fault of my own--that is not in my nature. We form societies not as feeding grounds for the rich to thrive off the work of the poor; we come together for collective security (we ARE, after all collective animals unable to survive alone without society and culture). When I paid into social security I understand that to be my DUES as a member of this collectivity. I would have paid even if I knew I would not receive benefits personally; not to have people starving en masse on the streets IS a social benefit to me.
