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)

My amateur's analysis is that the current system requires some people to pay more in to SS than they will ever get back. The extra money paid in is given to people who, for whatever reason, did not pay in a similar amount. I assume that you think that is a bad thing. I think it is a good thing and essential to a civilized society.

If you allow voluntary opt outs, two bad things will happen: (1) the burden of carrying the "free-loaders" will fall to fewer people, which is unfair, IMHO; and (2) many people who opt out will go broke and die naked out in the street because they will have no money for food, clothing, or housing. There they will rot because there is no money to pay for their funeral. I don't see that plan as enhancing my standard of living.

I don't have an answer for that one, but my guess is that the benefits from such a system would be out-weighed by the increased complexity. Social Security is an incredibly valuable program. The taxes needed to fund it, IMHO, are very reasonable. I would also reject any economic study that claims that SS in any way hinders our capitalistic system.

If folks are going to say the basis for wanting to destroy SSI is greed, then it is fair (and equally uncharitable) to ask this question.

By what right do you enslave me? Because when I am compelled to give my wealth for the benefit of another, I am a slave. If I give voluntarily, then it is an act of charity and love; otherwise it is extortion or slavery.

Bot

Social security is reinvested in the name of welfare for folks. It gets placed everywhere from savings to mortgage payments to dinner to, well, you name it. Is that a bad investment?

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

The main reason is the increased administration costs, estimated at 1.2 trillion over ten years, screwing the current retires and raising debt or taxes.

Unless of course, you are being enslaved to pay for mass murder. Then it is ok. Or fat tax breaks for corporations and the rich, thats ok too - but poor old people **** em.

No one is singling you out for your contribution. It is something we are all enslaved to each other for, as part of the cost of living in a place where we are not stumbling over dying old folk in the streets and sidewalks. In the grand scheme of outrages, even if you disapprove of it SS pales in comparison to the contributions extorted from the working man and woman to pay for policies and programs that never pay back a thin dime to any Americans, except the wealthy and powerful. 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)

Greed? Wanting to keep my money that I worked my but off for? I don't think so greed is wanting other peoples money for free. I worked for every penny I have and it is not the gov's right to any of it. This country was founded on not wanting to pay taxes!

Now SS could be a good program, if you get out of it what you put in. If you make $500k a year and hit the limit every year you will get less then someone who makes $30k come time for retirement. (at least that is the way I understand it.) I hate income redistrabution(sp?) with every fider of my body. (don't get me going on a repressive comunist income tax structure we have) I work for what I have and do not want to be punished for it.

I don't want to see old people starving either, but their has to be a better way. Besides who lives on SS? It isn't much it helps a little though. SS will be gone or reduced in 20 years because we cannot afford it, another better program must replace it.

__________________
2016 Corvette Stingray 2LT
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Plenty of people live on just Social Security. They live damn poorly, but they live. I don't mind paying SS taxes. I will probably get a lot of it back, and I will help those less fortunate then myself. The government is simply the best way for all these Republican Christians to help the sick and the old, like Christ told them to. Also, read the links - SS is projected to be solvent until 2042. All these exagerrations about it "going broke" - its just the newest "WMD" story the Republicans are trying to shove down our throats.

I prefer to donate money myself and help on my own. When I die I plan on leaving a trust to help good charity groups. At least thats the master plan at the time.

__________________
2016 Corvette Stingray 2LT
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

We tried that before SSI. Old people starved. Republicans were in charge then too.

Yeah I guess we screw everything up and the dems are just about perfect. Bill Clinton never did anything wrong he was a great pres. cough Mark Rich, cough China stealing our secret's.

__________________
2016 Corvette Stingray 2LT
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Oh, the Democrats have screwed up plenty, but SSI isn't one of the screw ups.

jim, i read your post on the spirit of SSI, when was the last time you read the communist manifesto?

can we agree that it takes time to earn money?

can we agree that time is a measurement of portions of our lives?

can we agree that the money we earn then represents portions of our life?

what gives anyone the right to forcibly take portions of my life, however small, simply because they need or want it?

if i give of my life willingly, that is one thing. if it is taken from me at the threat of lost liberty or worse (if i resist) lost life, acording to my means and given according to some need, that my friend is COMMUNISM. i never have agreed to the spirit of SSI as you have described it. even Roosevelt himself warned congress to stay away from the ever gathering pool of money set aside for SSI.....the bastages did not. now it's a ponsey scheme, destined for the same fate as all ponsey schemes........failure or greater fraud.