Posted on 06/01/2005 3:32:50 PM PDT by CHARLITE
A majority of likely voters (52-40%) favor proposals to allow younger workers the choice to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in personal accounts, according to a new poll conducted by Zogby International for the Cato Institute. Younger voters support the chance to invest by an enormous majority (66-23% among voters under 30).
The poll also found that Americans believe that opponents of President Bush's Social Security reform proposals have an obligation to put forward an alternative plan to solve the financial crisis that is about to engulf the current system. By an overwhelming 70-22% margin, voters said that Democrats should come up with proposals of their own. Even 55% of Democrats believe this.
Americans are highly skeptical that the current Social Security system will be able to cope in the near future. By a 62-30% margin, voters do not believe that Social Security will be able to pay all promised future benefits. Unsurprisingly, skepticism is particularly strong among younger voters with over 70% believing that Social Security will be unable to pay the benefits promised by the federal government.
As in past polling undertaken by Zogby International for the Cato Institute, the most important reason given by reform supporters for backing personal accounts is the strongly held belief that payroll tax contributions belong to the people paying them and that it is their money and they should be allowed to control it. This view was true for every ethnic and age group polled, except African-Americans, who chose inheritability as their biggest reason for supporting personal accounts.
The poll also found a significant red state/blue state divide. Voters living in red states support personal accounts by a 57-36% margin. Blue state voters are more closely split, supporting accounts by only 48-44%. Significantly independents support accounts (55-33%) as do self-described moderates (though by a narrow, 48-45% margin). Of major note, 53% of union workers supported personal accounts.
Older voters are less supportive of Social Security reform, with opposition hardening the older voters become. Voters over 65 years old oppose the introduction of personal accounts by 52-40%; those over 70 by 55-38%.
"This poll reflects three realities," said Mike Tanner, director of Cato's Project on Social Security Choice. "First, Americans understand the current Social Security system is in need of reform. Second, that allowing people the opportunity to own their retirement savings should be a fundamental component to any reform plan. And finally, doing nothing is not an option."
The poll of 1,006 likely voters was conducted May 23-25, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percent.
It's interesting how this issue isn't getting much airplay in the *ahem* "mainstream" media, but it obviously has a lot of traction with the public.
There's no guarantee that investments will do well in the future, but it's likely they will. I have paid substantial amounts into social security all my life and will get very little back. I paid comparable amounts into TIAA-CREF, and I will get back ten or maybe twenty times the return (if I sat down and did the numbers I could be more exact). But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that social security is a lousy deal for everyone but the minimal recipients who barely paid in enough to qualify.
SS sucks.
Problem is most young people don't vote in large numbers. I do and I'm 28 but not many. Old folks seem to vote in larger numbers, so if they think SS reform is gonna hurt them they're going to vote against anyone who votes for it. The politicians know this to be true. If young people are more vocal and vote more often this would pass without question IMO.
Anti-greedy geezer bump.
I don't have a problem with private accounts as long as I get to choose how it's invested and the government doesn't have control of the money. I also don't believe that private accounts are going to save social security and that a revamping of the whole system is the only cure. I would personally like to have the option of opting out of the primary ss account to invest all of those taxes in a private account.
I am not taking ss as it stands now into account when figuring my retirement plans. If I have it great, it's just icing.
Rush made such a stunningly crystal clear presentation of exactly what privatization is, on his show today, that I couldn't help wonder why President Bush can't lay it out in the same way. When you hear such a clear presentation, there is no contest. In fact, you want to jettison the entire gov't run S.S. and start putting the whole 12% into privately controlled investment accounts, not a mere 4%!!
Thanks for your comments, Cicero.
Char :)
I only heard part of what Rush said. I didn't hear him explain that we have to keep paying the Seniors who were promised SS.
We have to pay enough to keep those promises, but I think the best idea is to convert from this Ponzi scheme to an actual savings plan as soon as possible. Any explanation that moves people along that road is good enough for me.
Which further proves how out of touch the dems are when Pelosi says that they won't even come to the table until private accounts are removed.
For being so poll driven .. this amazes me about the dems .. because these polls showing 66% approve of private accounts - the dems should be jumping on this - it could be a winning issue for them.
But .. alas .. they are not interested in doing anything which might get the President any points. They would rather be a pain in the behind.
Nothing further needs to be said. You've got it exactly right. Everyone knows, including this miserable crop of Democrat "leaders" (who aren't even worthy of that description), that Clinton was making a very big issue of the need to fix Social Security halfway through his double term. The Democrats know this!
What kills me is how they seem to think that the rest of the country suffers from severe amnesia!
Thanks for your remarks, CyberAnt (and BTW, what a cute FR name!.....I've been meaning to mention it before!)
Char ::)
And .. not only was Clinton proposing to fix it - he saw the opportunity with the proposed surplus to do it and make it painless. But .. what's even funnier is that Clinton proposed PRIVATE ACCOUNTS AT 5% - and the dems LOVED IT.
Now that Bush is proposing private accounts at 4% - they're awful and the dems won't even talk about it.
Pathetic!
You have FReepmail.
That's because 20-30 somethings are busy making the American economy hum while the 60+ bluehairs just take a break from playing bingo and get shipped by the busload to the voting booths.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.