By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should Social Security in the U.S Be Privatized?

 

Should Social Security Be Privatized?

Yes 28 24.14%
 
No 78 67.24%
 
Maybe 3 2.59%
 
Undecided 7 6.03%
 
Total:116
starcraft on 03 July 2015
Puppyroach said:
starcraft said:
Puppyroach said:

Put how can it possibly be privatized when it is funded by the government through taxes? I know that line is very blurry a lot of the times but I find it fascinating that we in this day and age call systems where the government basically gives corporations social welfare "privatization". The reasons this system in Australia succeeds (not to sure it has, the article and graphs give way to little information) is because the government has taken the funding of the social security system out of the budget process in a way. It doesn't have to compete with funding of other public areas in the same way as before. The solution would instead to keep it within the government but secure it funding so that defence spending for example, doesn't cut into social security.

You have misunderstood. It is not government funded. Employers are required to pay the 9.5% super contribution. When super was introduced, the nation endured a quick, one-off drop in income (as the extra 9.5% was factored out of pay-packets). All of the contributions are paid by private contributions from companies, with optional additions from employees that are favourably taxed. Until recently the government matched a small amount of additional contributions but this has been/is being phased out.

The government mandates that this happens, but it is virtually all private money. And it scarcely falls afoul of civil liberties, as you can manage your superannuation balance yourself if you like.

You just gave the very definition of a tax :). This is usually political semantics in order to cater to cetrain demographics. But just as the US Supreme court concluded regarding the ACA (where emplyers are required to pay into the system), it is a matter of taxation since the purpose is to fund a public system through mandatory payments under the threat of punishment if you do not fulfill you payments. It doesn´t matter if the government are the ones managing the funding in the end, the government are the ones doing the taxation.

I think you're misunderstanding the system.

Employers are not required to pay into a pool. The 9.5% routinely forms a part of the 'package' offered to any new employee. Indeed, many employees use it as an incentive and offer more than 9.5%.

Regardless, all of the money they pay is directly linked to you specifically, not a general pool.

This is even more true if you choose to manage your own portfolio. In this case, your employer would simply be paying your 9.5% directly into a fund you have oversight and management of. You could choose to invest in specific shares, properties or commodities if you liked.

And the government and any government-run organisation would never see any of it, aside from the 15% super contribution tax (which is much LESS than you'd pay if you simple received the amount as income).



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network
enlightenedmaster on 03 July 2015
Aielyn said:
enlightenedmaster said:

no fucking way

 

Corporations will clean them and run away with the money

Private accounts with government regulation. It really does work well, here in Australia. America should look at our system.

Corporations can only really "run away with the money" if government doesn't do its job in regulating it all.

it can be tried and will work but Govenrment pension fund will surely beat it any day

 

corporation can lose money,government can put ceo's other in jail but do nothing if money is once lost



Teeqoz on 03 July 2015

You can easily follow the australian system without privatizing social security. Just make a tax advantaged social security trust fund and have people set aside 9% off their annual income in it. That's how simple it is.



enlightenedmaster on 03 July 2015
sc94597 said:

1. Why not? Chile has been successful despite being a South American country. 

why cause the continent is ourtright unstable and has a poor record for civilization

2. Except there is a danger. The social security fund is bankrupt and empty because of politics. It isn't about what there "shouldn't be" it is about what is, and that is. 

well social security should be a deposit fund not a system that pays out of taxes as that is a burden on future generation

it needs to change

3. Don't disagree about the inflation stuff and fiat vs. resource money, but I think it is still valid to look at the actual retirement system itself. 

yup

4. Certainly it can. Remove limited liability and sue individuals who made fraudulent decisions in said corporation. They'd start becoming trustworthy very quickly. Of course cronyism in government prevents that from happening. If government weren't crony however (or it didn't exist) then civil cases would prevent fraud much more than criminal cases do now. 

well yes,but the money once lost to fraud or lost in market cannot be recovered

just look at the way BANKS are gambling again even after the 2008 crisis,its like they are not 1 bit worried

 

civil cases will never prevent fraud cause it can be influenced by money and law is pretty much negotiable with money

5. Unfortunately this is true, but it is only ture because of how entangled government has become in the economy and how bloated it has become itself. If a government were strictly responsible for enforcing contracts and protecting rights it would have less to lose. But still, it is a reality of the current world, but I think that is more motivation to have personal retirement accounts rather than ones in which the government uses as a wallet. 

govenments have always  been the stability on which corporations and trade works may it be world-wide sea being governed by BRITISH NAVY in 19ths Century or suppoting the world economy with a GOLD standard





Aielyn on 03 July 2015
enlightenedmaster said:
it can be tried and will work but Govenrment pension fund will surely beat it any day

 

corporation can lose money,government can put ceo's other in jail but do nothing if money is once lost

The government can put a guarantee on the money for those situations (meaning, in the situation in which the corporation squanders the money, the government will provide the money as a replacement; gives the government more motivation to properly regulate to prevent the problem in the first place, too).

But beyond that, like I said, proper regulation is more than sufficient. Corporations have extensive restrictions on what they can do with superannuation money. It's not like in America with the repeal of Glass-Steagal and related issues. Super funds don't actually "own" your money at any point - they manage it, but beyond the standard charges, they can't actually access it directly. They just instruct where to invest, etc... and it's pretty much required that they diversify the investment, to minimise the risk. And then all the strict regulations apply on top of it. Even if the company collapses, your Super is safe.

It's certainly not perfect, but I'm not aware of any country with a better system. And that most certainly includes America, where your purely-public system is bankrupting you.

In fact, Australia's a good demonstration on the possibility of proper balancing of public and private (although there are certainly issues, they're mostly down to the government not doing it right) - not just Super, but also our Health system, our Education system, etc.



Around the Network
sc94597 on 03 July 2015
enlightenedmaster said:

1. well yes,but the money once lost to fraud or lost in market cannot be recovered

just look at the way BANKS are gambling again even after the 2008 crisis,its like they are not 1 bit worried

 

civil cases will never prevent fraud cause it can be influenced by money and law is pretty much negotiable with money

2. govenments have always  been the stability on which corporations and trade works may it be world-wide sea being governed by BRITISH NAVY in 19ths Century or suppoting the world economy with a GOLD standard



1. That money isn't recovered, but compensation is still made through other assets that individuals in that company own or if the company still exists (assets that the company owns.) As it is now individuals in said companies have limited liability, so once the company goes bankrupt that's the end of that. However, these people are the ones who made the fraudulent decisions, and if they aren't held accountable through the criminal system then the civil system will hold them accountable. I don't see how the criminal system prevents bribes any more than the civil system does, to be honest. In fact there is more incentive to bribe when taken to criminal court because the cost of imprisonment is quite high. If people are suing for the return of their assets however, the cost to bribe might likely exceed the cost to settle. As Aielyn mentioned, another way to prevent this is to diversify the assets. Instead of investing everything into one company, invest into multiple companies and if you so choose - natural resources (I'm not sure if Australia allows the other or not, but it should be possible.) 

2. The U.S remained quite low-key in the economy until the progressive era (early 1900's.) Besides protectionism and patents, both of which were overburdening on their system, the U.S let money stay in the hands of its people without many intrusions.  3% of GDP was government owned, and they still performed functions like enforcing anti-fraud laws, maintaining a defensive military, navy, and reserve, court system, etc, etc. I am not saying things were perfect then, or even better. They were a lot simpler though, and people couldn't get away with fraud so easily due to convulusion and high legal costs caused by such convulusion. There is a balance somewhere in the modern world. Furthermore, without such huge government expenditures (30-40% of GDP) the U.S could afford to not take out debt, and live within its means. People want their cake (social programs and military programs) and to eat it too (a stable economy that allows for employment and retirement through your own individualized actions where hyperinflation is not looming around the corner.) 



sethnintendo on 03 July 2015

Yea, let us over-inflate the stock market and cause a huge bubble again.



enlightenedmaster on 03 July 2015
Aielyn said:

The government can put a guarantee on the money for those situations (meaning, in the situation in which the corporation squanders the money, the government will provide the money as a replacement; gives the government more motivation to properly regulate to prevent the problem in the first place, too).

well why waste money,why not let government handle it and secure it

also it shudn't be governments duty to pay for corporate shenanigans and where wud government bring the money from,they don't actually frow it on trees

no matter what,govenrment will fuck up regulations,they actually like it.if you know USA's false flag history,government will actually make it happen

they were 2-3 years ago trying to start a war with IRAN,RUSSIA on the basis of financial warfare

But beyond that, like I said, proper regulation is more than sufficient. Corporations have extensive restrictions on what they can do with superannuation money. It's not like in America with the repeal of Glass-Steagal and related issues.

well they have in the past

Super funds don't actually "own" your money at any point - they manage it,

thast waht i am worried abt,if they just held it in some safe,then i wud be tension free

but them playing with my money won't let me sleep properly

but beyond the standard charges, they can't actually access it directly. They just instruct where to invest, etc... and it's pretty much required that they diversify the investment, to minimise the risk. And then all the strict regulations apply on top of it. Even if the company collapses, your Super is safe.

not really,companies have a way of misplacing funds and resoruces and cooking books and just using someone's money to fix somebody else's problem

It's certainly not perfect, but I'm not aware of any country with a better system. And that most certainly includes America, where your purely-public system is bankrupting you.

well,USA need an absolute overhall not just money system but politics,culture,religion,people,etc

 

if you know history and have studied history cycles and have studied Roman History

Its almost time for American republic to go under like Roman republic and birth of an American Empire with an Emperor

back in Rome,it was the same poistion USA's in right now.Nobody had the balls to fix it other than Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar

In fact, Australia's a good demonstration on the possibility of proper balancing of public and private (although there are certainly issues, they're mostly down to the government not doing it right) - not just Super, but also our Health system, our Education system, etc.

yeah Australia,Canada - both European centric countries and Europe have poreety good regulations compared to the fuck-up that is USA





enlightenedmaster on 03 July 2015
sc94597 said:

1. That money isn't recovered, but compensation is still made through other assets that individuals in that company own or if the company still exists (assets that the company owns.) As it is now individuals in said companies have limited liability, so once the company goes bankrupt that's the end of that. However, these people are the ones who made the fraudulent decisions, and if they aren't held accountable through the criminal system then the civil system will hold them accountable. I don't see how the criminal system prevents bribes any more than the civil system does, to be honest. In fact there is more incentive to bribe when taken to criminal court because the cost of imprisonment is quite high. If people are suing for the return of their assets however, the cost to bribe might likely exceed the cost to settle. As Aielyn mentioned, another way to prevent this is to diversify the assets. Instead of investing everything into one company, invest into multiple companies and if you so choose - natural resources (I'm not sure if Australia allows the other or not, but it should be possible.) 

well most the time time,remaining assets do not really cover the amount of fraud that has taken place

diversifying assets is good but most of all government shud be taking of certain basic things in human life

 

people who have worked 40 years in a corporation ahev their pensions lost as the company they worked for went under and as corporations have ups and downs and no company has more than 10-20 of high stability normally,its better not to trust private sector

also the headache of shifting money over and over again in ur old age is not the most liked scenario

 

2. The U.S remained quite low-key in the economy until the progressive era (early 1900's.) Besides protectionism and patents, both of which were overburdening on their system, the U.S let money stay in the hands of its people without many intrusions.  3% of GDP was government owned, and they still performed functions like enforcing anti-fraud laws, maintaining a defensive military, navy, and reserve, court system, etc, etc. I am not saying things were perfect then, or even better. They were a lot simpler though, and people couldn't get away with fraud so easily due to convulusion and high legal costs caused by such convulusion. There is a balance somewhere in the modern world. Furthermore, without such huge government expenditures (30-40% of GDP) the U.S could afford to not take out debt, and live within its means. People want their cake (social programs and military programs) and to eat it too (a stable economy that allows for employment and retirement through your own individualized actions where hyperinflation is not looming around the corner.) 

USA was a small country back then so people didn't expect much

today,USA is the biggest and greatest EMPIRE the world has ever seen

 

People expect better things as a Nation progresses and prospers

also if you know,USA was able to live happily and work-out its democratic experiment only because World Security and Trade was maintained by Britain without which USA wudn't have succeeded





sc94597 on 03 July 2015
sethnintendo said:

Yea let us over-inflate the stock market and cause a huge bubble again.

When most of these new assets cannot be taken out until 30-50 years from now (you are not allowed to touch it until retirement) how exactly would the boom, bust? Nobody will stop investing or remove their assets out of fear, because they can't. They'll just move it to other assets, if they are afraid. By the time people can collect, the stock market would have grown large enough to accomodate, assuming no interim disasters. This is also especially true if we consider that the diversification of assets wouldn't make any single investment more popular than any another. Also if it is done gradually (slow decrease in social security and slow increase in personal account mandates this would also not be an issue.) It would have to be done gradually anyway, because there are people already invested in the social security system. Social security would likely still exist, but mostly for the poor and disabled. 

Sure, any circumstance in which resources are being allocated unoptimally will lead to a bubble, but some bubbles are much worse than others. And this one is at least predictable. 

This would be much less endangering to the stock market than the poor manipulation of interest rates by the FED anyway.