By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 17 August 2011
Edit Thread
fordy said:
Kasz216 said:

 

Now, to get back on topic.  What happens if he doesn't save enough?  The same thing that's going to happen anyway.  He's going to be on Welfare, just like if he had social security, because social security is doomed to failure.

1)Though does Social security keep tabs on who puts in what? If not, then surely that shows the underprivilidged are better off on social security. If not, then how exactly would the private option be better? You dug yourself into a bit of a hole there.

2)Heck, if your going to argue that most people won't get enough to reitre, well that certaintly shows a problem doesn't it?  We're putting in less then we're getting out, kinda reenforces the whole "Medicare is going to collapse and it's just a matter of who it collapses on" statement isn't it?  I mean, if you can't get enough retirement out of an IRA that gets an average yield 3-7% higher then the 5% that the government bonds have listed... I mean... seriously... the system is screwed.

So why not put in more to the existing system? Once again, how is privatisation going to change this? The idea of a mandatory scheme like social security is promised revenue that can accrue interest, enough to offset extra burden, especially with the boomers in retirement. A current "straight in-straight out" system only works when you don't have an aging population. The system itself isn't broken. It's the way that you executed it that was broken.

Even more so when you consider the fact that the 5% interest rate number is fictional.  It's the US spending $100 now and promising $105 later... well apparently unless the government is about to default on it's obligations, then your the very first people that are going to be cut out.

3)Interesting. I'm getting 6% on my savings and that's just a generic savings account. I'm sure if I actually tried and invested in something like property or term investment, even safe investment could yield at least 12%.

As what happened in the recent Debt Debate, where Obama through Social Security and Medicare recpients under the bus right away.

4)As what's expected by a conservative president......wait.....you mean he's not? Must be nice to give his opponent 100% of what they wanted and still call it a fair compromise.

Also, i mean.... you know not everyone gets social security right?  For example, my mom didn't qualify because she didn't work 10 years.

5) That sounds like social security being too right-leaning, not being too socialist. I mean god DAMN, how screwed up is the welfare there?

I mean honestly, are you going to give me some points to stump me, or do I have to keep shooting holes in your flawed ideology? Privatisation of public services is a FAILURE, especially if you can say that regulation is what keeps costs up, despite billions in profits generated by these guys. Trickle down economics is pure theory (in fact, theory often has some logic behind it, so let's just move it to 'myth' instead), as can be seen by the state of your economy now. Too much focus on giving tax breaks to promote jobs, but the truth is 6) NOBODY IS WILLING TO EMPLOY IN AN ECONOMY WHERE NOBODY CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO BUY SHIT.


1) Actually I didn't dig myself into a hole, it's just, you don't know dick about how Social Security works.   Social security DOES take in how much you paid.  That decides how much you get paid monthly.  Until you die.  It doesn't actually matter how long you live though... so once you pass what you should be entitled to from social security you can keep collecting... and most people do.  Hence the systems impending collapse.   This isn't accounted for in FICA taxes or mentioned by the Democrats, because if it was, they would lose a ton of votes for raising taxes.


2)  Privitization can cause the collapse to happen slower and in parts and make sure that people have retirement funds by gradually increasing the amount of Fica that can be put in private funds.

3) Again, take note that the government bonds don't really have a 5% yield.  This isn't like Denmark where the country invests the money it gets into a pension fund full of stocks and bonds.  Quite literally all the US government does is buy government bonds from itself promising to pay back the money with 5% interest.   What do you think would happen if you took your retirement money, and used it to buy yourself "Fordy Bonds" that say "In 40 years I plan to pay back this money with 5% interest" then went out and bought a TV.  This is literally the case,  Social Security would be more effective if the law said "You must keep the same percentage of taxes in your savings account until you are 67 years old."

4) Actually that's what he planned to do.... without the compromise.  He established the fact that the minute we can't pay our bills... america's seniors are scerewed because social secutiry is a messed up broken program that needs to be abolished.

5) Extremely, which is why it needs to go.  It's worse then having no system.  It's no better then having a too liberal deregulation, where you loosen up buisness regs but still keep all the buisness deductions and bonuses.

6) People can still afford to buy shit.  The US still has a higher Median per capita income PPP then the vast majority of countries in the world.    Median, being not effected much by the rich having way too much,  Per capita being per person, and PPP meaning adjusting for how much thigns cost.

This is true even when you consider Median Disposable household income... so no, government healthcare and the like doesn't help other countries cases enough.  The people in the US can afford more shit then the people in Australia can for example.