Quote:
|
Originally Posted by webwench
None of your post addresses the questions (1) why not allow voluntary opt-outs, or (2) why not allow people in the program to choose from a menu of 'approved' investment options within social security?
Greed is an easy, low blow that does not at all address the issue at hand, nor is it a fair tactic to use against someone who is presenting an alternate viewpoint in good faith. In other words, you don't know me well enough to call me greedy.
|
Webwench,
You are correct, I do not know you at all so I cannot call you much more than Webwench. I don't think I did, but I did suggest the idea of making the individual's contribution to SS belong exclusively to the individual was founded in something close to greed. But it was the idea, not the person, I was critical of and I did not mean to make it a personal attack.
I find the logic based on "its mine so I want to keep it" the simplest and most thorough explanation of the motive behind wanting to undo SS. I see the discussion of government control and government greed/power grabbing as distracting. The spirit of SS is that we all agree to set aside something to help each other out. It is involuntary because, like No-Fault insurance in another anology, it is most effective and the lowest cost as an insurance policy only if the risk is spread over a very large group. As Kirk noted we cannot know how long we will live, and until it is legal to do yourself in when your money runs low, the opting out concept will not work if all of yours is only yours, and all of mine is only mine.
I don't really see a lot of difference between the opting out concept and allowing SS funds to be invested to increase the return with "investment options" for the individual. The money you put in will remain yours, along with its earnings or losses, which is again a case of removing the insurance aspect and making it your government run IRA or 401K. It does not address how people determine the rate at which they can consume their savings when they enter old age so that they are not destitute when they are oldest and truly incapable of securing any income.
I hate insurance, by the way, and do not buy collision insurance for my cars because I concluded long ago that collision insurance was a form of sanctioned gambling where the insurers have State sanctions to stack the odds against the me. I get treated like a statistic, and I figure the statistic is the input to a formula that the insurance company uses to make it a sure bet that they will win. I am content to take the risk of losing my wheels if I screw up and ruin my car, and bank that collision insurance money. But liability is another question. Same rules for insurance company setting rates, but the number of people in the pool compared to the insurance company's risk makes the pain a lot less for me, the individual compared to the risk. And I do not want to take the personal risks associated with being sued should I make a serious error in judgement while driving. Same with putting all my eggs in the 401k basket. SS is a decent insurance plan and was never intended to be structured to allow each subscriber to treat it like a private fund. We should protect it rather than attack it. Protect it from those who would like to use it to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, who likely won't need SS. Jim
__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles
Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)
|