Should Social Security in the U.S Be Privatized?

[Aielyn]

enlightenedmaster said:

Aielyn said:
2. I'm not even sure what you're responding to, here. Who have what in the past?

didn't glass steagle get repealed in 1999 and also other laws after corporations influence and lobby the government

3. Super funds are required to invest according to your wishes. So you can ask them to put the money in safe investments that garner only small returns (not unlike regular bank accounts). Or you can be more risky, and ask them to invest for long-term returns. And there's even "self-managed super funds", which go further and basically let you be the manager of your own investments (there are, of course, laws about what you can "invest" the money in - you can't "invest" it in a holiday home for yourself, for instance).

do you really expect after working 40years,people want the headahe of managing their retirnment and the risk?

I'm not going to go through and respond extensively, because these two capture the problem with what you've posted (and I see you've been "banned" right now, so it's not like there'll be further discussion in the short term).

2. What does that have to do with anything? We're talking about Australia's system, Glass-Steagal doesn't apply in Australia anyway. We have our own laws. And what I've been saying is that America needs to reinstate the kinds of protections Glass-Steagal gave, which were what prevented the tanking of your economy.

3. I don't think you understand. They manage the superannuation accounts while they're working, not at the end when they retire. And it's not a massively hands-on process, it's more like making a series of decisions (usually with extensive advice from professionals) on where the money is invested. And if you don't want risk, you invest it in safe-but-low-return options. You could probably even just not invest it at all, if that was your choice (although I don't know the details of the law regarding that). But the point is, there's really no notable risk of companies stealing your super. The worst would be fees, and if the fees were exorbitant and you weren't informed up front, you'd be able to sue to get the money back easily... and that's why the super funds don't do it (because if they did, they'd face both civil and criminal penalties).

And again, I'm going to point out that you're arguing in favour of the current system in America, where governments have direct control... if they suck at regulating, they're going to suck even more at actually running the system.