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
generic-user-1 on 10 July 2015
sc94597 said:
generic-user-1 said:


why shouldnt th majority support this redistribution?  it workes for everyone but the hedgefund managers(those are the onlyone that make alot of money and dont have to care for the economy).

 

even if you own all of ford,m$ or apple, redistribution will work for you, because thats money that stays in the economy and doesnt get lost in some banks pockets.

I won't argue about what "should be" but rather what "is." The majority of Americans, regardless of their economic status, do not support redistributions of wealth when they are evident and outwardly so. Much of the redistributive legislation that has gotten passed is more subtle and has other merits. That makes a progressive tax (or even a flat tax) on social security unlikely, because the rewards would be equally distributed for an unequal pay in. Furthermore, this would create a financial burden that would have to be accomodated for by the cut of some other tax, otherwise the deadweight loss becomes too much and you accelarate the process of executives of corporations movement overseas and to tax havens. Additionally, in the scenario I proposed in this thread - workers get to manage their own retirements (which is what the American far-left - an essentially syndicalist movement - would want), which is a thousand times better than government (whom you seem to agree is heavily influenced by the rich) doing as such. So it's not even a left wing principle to have government in control of retirements. It is a state socialist one which proponents of mixed economies have adopted when liberals merged with social democrats. 

if the government works okayish, there is nothing negative about government controll of retirement. but the us government isnt even close to working okayish.

 

oh and i found the answer for this thread...

“Should any party attempt to abolish social security and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course, that believes you can do these things … Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”  some republican president



Around the Network
sc94597 on 11 July 2015
generic-user-1 said:

oh and i found the answer for this thread...

“Should any party attempt to abolish social security and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course, that believes you can do these things … Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”  some republican president

As the country becomes more libertarian (on both the right and left: vulgar libertarian, mutualist, syndicalist,  and social anarchist) these numbers are growing. I really don't care if "some republican president" said that. He likely said that to appeal to populists at the time of his presidency, which is not now. It doesn't matter who says it. Sooner, rather than later, a whole generation is going to find itself without a sound retirement plan. 

I'll actually target your quote from a far left perspective this time (syndicalist) (Note: The American far-left has historically been much more syndicalist, while European far-left has historically been much more state-socialist):

Social security: Workers should be in charge of their retirements, not the state. The workers can manage retirements through non-government unions in their chosen industry. The state pillages the product of our labor, and uses it to subsidize capitalists and to protect capitalist assets through warfare. 

Labor laws: Workers should decide the labor conditions in their workplaces through the democratic process, but only they can do it. Government should not decide such conditions, because they aren't suited to decide which conditions meet the workers' needs, and often they give special consideration to capitalists. Furthermore, the state uses such laws to popularize wage labor and ACTUALLY reduce the cost of wage labor in general. 

Farm programs: Farm programs are designed to give surplus product to capitalists. Otherwise, farming would be a perfectly competitive market (with zero profit - the mutualist argument) or it would be managed by the worker unions. 

or a (market socialist perspective -mutualist)

Social Security:  Retirement plans should not be mandated or forced upon people. This allows for the state to enact fraud in which they promise rewards, but really they wish to tax and redistrbute these resources to capitalists. 

Labor laws: If is the decisions of individuals and groups to decide their own working conditions. Labor laws tend to subsidize the social cost of wage labor and make it more popular. Wage labor is theft. 

Farm Programs: If the state did not give farmers subsidies, then it would be impossible to profit off of farming (profiting is stealing the surplus product from the laborers.) People would farm as much as they need without state interference. 

Anyway, it is quite obvious that personal retirement accounts have worked better in securing retirement in a fair and free manner in other countries. Meanwhile many countries with public retirement schemes are facing huge issues. 



Zackasaurus-rex on 11 July 2015

Absolutely not. Social security needs to be significantly expanded



http://voteforbernie.org

sc94597 on 11 July 2015
Zackasaurus-rex said:
Absolutely not. Social security needs to be significantly expanded

How would such expansion be funded? 



generic-user-1 on 11 July 2015
sc94597 said:
generic-user-1 said:

oh and i found the answer for this thread...

“Should any party attempt to abolish social security and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course, that believes you can do these things … Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”  some republican president

As the country becomes more libertarian (on both the right and left: vulgar libertarian, mutualist, syndicalist,  and social anarchist) these numbers are growing. I really don't care if "some republican president" said that. He likely said that to appeal to populists at the time of his presidency, which is not now. It doesn't matter who says it. Sooner, rather than later, a whole generation is going to find itself without a sound retirement plan. 

I'll actually target your quote from a far left perspective this time (syndicalist) (Note: The American far-left has historically been much more syndicalist, while European far-left has historically been much more state-socialist):

Social security: Workers should be in charge of their retirements, not the state. The workers can manage retirements through non-government unions in their chosen industry. The state pillages the product of our labor, and uses it to subsidize capitalists and to protect capitalist assets through warfare. 

Labor laws: Workers should decide the labor conditions in their workplaces through the democratic process, but only they can do it. Government should not decide such conditions, because they aren't suited to decide which conditions meet the workers' needs, and often they give special consideration to capitalists. Furthermore, the state uses such laws to popularize wage labor and ACTUALLY reduce the cost of wage labor in general. 

Farm programs: Farm programs are designed to give surplus product to capitalists. Otherwise, farming would be a perfectly competitive market (with zero profit - the mutualist argument) or it would be managed by the worker unions. 

or a (market socialist perspective -mutualist)

Social Security:  Retirement plans should not be mandated or forced upon people. This allows for the state to enact fraud in which they promise rewards, but really they wish to tax and redistrbute these resources to capitalists. 

Labor laws: If is the decisions of individuals and groups to decide their own working conditions. Labor laws tend to subsidize the social cost of wage labor and make it more popular. Wage labor is theft. 

Farm Programs: If the state did not give farmers subsidies, then it would be impossible to profit off of farming (profiting is stealing the surplus product from the laborers.) People would farm as much as they need without state interference. 

Anyway, it is quite obvious that personal retirement accounts have worked better in securing retirement in a fair and free manner in other countries. Meanwhile many countries with public retirement schemes are facing huge issues. 


well i think most of this points are wrong, but the idea that they have to be against the state is wrong.

they dont trust the state because they never lived in a state with a good working government.

germany has a retirement system that  is in the middle of state run and ngo run and it works well(the influence of the state is important because the state has to subsidies the system if there isnt enough money, and the state pays alot of money into that organisation for people that cant pay into the system. same is right for healthcare.   we are allowed to vote for the people we want in charge of those organisations in special elections.

 

the understanding of labor laws of those people looks wrong too. labor laws are just the minimum not the maximum. a minimum wage is the least someone is allowed to pay, the unions can fight for better intern labor regulations. works well in europe but you need unions...

 

and farming programs are a problem, but the basic idea isnt wrong, making food cheaper.



Around the Network
Buckwheat on 11 July 2015

I would rather not pay into social security, but rather place the money into my 401k or IRA. Although I feel like there is only a small chance, the thought of paying into something for 40 years only for it not to be available when I need it scares the shit out of me.



Predicting that Second Son (PS4) will outsell Titanfall (XOne) in lifetime sales.  Click here for sales comparison thread.

enlightenedmaster on 11 July 2015
DJEVOLVE said:

thats a STUPID idea

 

tat way if a millionaire puts in more money then he shud also get more money out when he retires but thats not gonna happen.

 

its a retarted democrat idea of taking from 1 person and giving to the other



enlightenedmaster on 11 July 2015
Aielyn said:

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.

what i was meaning is USA system is controlled by corporations which forced government to repeal glass steagle so you saying governments just re-instates glass steagle doesn't work

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).

well if we don't have to invest or just move to low-return investments,then whats the point of superannuation?

can't we just buy real estate for rent or put it in bank for interest?

the whole point of superannuation isn't worth it.its as good or worse than keeping money with government

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.

i'm not arguing in favor of current american system atall

if i had power,i wud scrap it in a second

 

but what i am saying is the current american crisis is more because of a cyclic and all-out systemic-political problem,not a problem of regulation.

the same problem can be faced by any country like europe and japan face at the moment

and south america - brazil,chile,argentina have faced in the past

or zimbawe

 

nothing's gonna change USA today,only an absolution heavy-handed political change.





Aielyn on 12 July 2015
enlightenedmaster said:
Aielyn said:

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.

what i was meaning is USA system is controlled by corporations which forced government to repeal glass steagle so you saying governments just re-instates glass steagle doesn't work

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).

well if we don't have to invest or just move to low-return investments,then whats the point of superannuation?

can't we just buy real estate for rent or put it in bank for interest?

the whole point of superannuation isn't worth it.its as good or worse than keeping money with government

4. 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.

i'm not arguing in favor of current american system atall

if i had power,i wud scrap it in a second

 

5. but what i am saying is the current american crisis is more because of a cyclic and all-out systemic-political problem,not a problem of regulation.

the same problem can be faced by any country like europe and japan face at the moment

and south america - brazil,chile,argentina have faced in the past

or zimbawe

 

nothing's gonna change USA today,only an absolution heavy-handed political change.

First of all.. PLEASE stop posting your responses INSIDE your quote of my post. It makes it frustrating to try to respond to your posts. If you want to make it easy to respond, use the numbers the way I've been doing - it makes it a lot easier to keep track of things.

2. And that's something more that the US has to fix. Saying that it's a bad idea because of the other problems is silly.

3. The point of superannuation is that some of the money you earn during your working years is kept aside ready for when you retire. Investment, etc, is intended to increase the amount of money you have in that account. But it's still your money, even if you can't access it, yourself, until you reach retirement age (although there are special circumstances that allow you to access some of it early). And you can effectively put it into a bank for the interest that way... but you still can't get at the money outside of those special cases. As for putting it into real estate for rent... first, few people have that much money in their super account that they can buy real estate with it (at least, not until near the end of their working life, at which point investment isn't a big concern). Second, real estate is a very volatile market, as demonstrated by your own country's massive screwing of the world economy due primarily to something relating to real estate.

That being said, it is possible to invest your super in real estate.

4. And you'd replace it with... what? Increased tax burden on people through full pension? Or allowing old people to completely lose out when they retire, especially those who paid into Social Security all their lives?

One of the big problems with the Libertarian movement (and I'm guessing you're libertarian of this sort) is that they have a lot to say about their ideological view on how things should be set up, but they never actually think about the negative consequences of the change, either short-term or long-term.

5. It's a cyclic problem that is experienced all over the world........ except Australia. Food for thought.



enlightenedmaster on 12 July 2015

wrong post