Workers Have Retirement 'Overconfidence'

Yahoo! News ^ | 4/4/06 | EILEEN ALT POWELL

[linda_22003]

No, that's okay, but since I've never worked for the federal government I don't know the alphabet soup. :)

[oldcomputerguy]

"then tell me why it pays people who have money $2000/mo and gives some poor widows $450/mo)?"

Because the more you pay in, the more you take out.

[oldcomputerguy]

"That implies that it's a perfect system and that no one gets left behind."

I see...... first you state an unwarranted conclusion and then argue it. Did I say it was perfect? How did you jump from me saying "it works" to me saying "its perfect"?

"You act like that if and when government isn't in the picture, there are no other options. That's BS."

Obviously history is not your strong suit. There was a reason why SS came into existence, now what could it be??? Other stated measures weren't working? Yes maybe that it!

I'd rather the government keep its hand out of my pocket

Now we get to your actual motivation, I knew it was in there somewhere...... More for me.

[libertarianPA]

Because the more you pay in, the more you take out.

Wow. The liberal philosophy of economics really has its hooks in you, doesn't it?

[libertarianPA]

Obviously history is not your strong suit. There was a reason why SS came into existence, now what could it be??? Other stated measures weren't working? Yes maybe that it!

Hey, Mr. History. I hate to break this to you, but there were charities that helped the elderly and disabled before SS. And they garnered the same results as SS - they helped a lot of people, but couldn't help everyone.

The fact is that the Great Depression - a depression that was started (partially) and prolonged as a result of government regulation of the economy - put more of a strain on these charities, to the point where many of them failed. That's why the government stepped in. But that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. It doesn't mean that it actually "helped" America. Just because some reap the benefits of an entitlement program doesn't mean the entitlement program is righteous.

[oldcomputerguy]

"Wow. The liberal philosophy of economics really has its hooks in you, doesn't it?"

You are having trouble discerning fact from philosophy. I stated a fact.

[libertarianPA]

I stated a fact.

Not really. You stated a viewpoint. In your opinion, SS was started because charity didn't work. I have a different opinion. I think it was lack of faith that the capitalist system would correct itself after what should have been a depression that lasted two years at the most with not nearly the unemployment rates we saw by 1933. If you do your research, you'll realize that as shortly as six months after the Crash of 29, America was on its way back to recovery. The market had recovered almost half of the volume it lost and unemployment was only 10% - which is what much of Europe is currently experiencing. The more government got involved, the worse things got. The worse things got, the bigger strain on charities who were able to help people.

By 1933, there had been so much intervention by the federal government, the unemployment rate was almost 30%.

So, in my opinion, SS was started because the capitalist system was not allowed to correct itself. Had Hoover and FDR kept the government out of what it should have never been involved in, SS would not have been necessary.

You think of it as an inevitablity based on the notion that charities never worked. That's an opinion, not a fact.

[T Minus Four]

having too much in savings results in higher tuition bills.

Make 'em get student loans. They'll have the rest of their working lives to sort it out. You can't borrow money to retire on.

[oldcomputerguy]

I said "I stated a fact." You said "Not really".

The post to which you were replying asked why some people got paid less and some got paid more. I stated the fact that they paid more in, which is the basis for determining SS payouts.

You seem to exhibit short term memory problems as you change the argument again and grind your ax for less government, constantly try to tar me with your brush.

I think SS is one of the few government success stories whether it is perfect or not. The problem I see with SS is in fact SSI, which is abused and a probable perversion of the program.

[libertarianPA]

The post to which you were replying asked why some people got paid less and some got paid more. I stated the fact that they paid more in, which is the basis for determining SS payouts.

Apparently, my short term memory is not nearly as bad as your literacy. I never responded to anyone who asked why some people get more and why some people get less.

you change the argument again and grind your ax for less government, constantly try to tar me with your brush.

My argument never changed. I told you why I thought SS came about. And I've stated that I think government intervention is a bad plan, especially in terms of retirement.

And trust me, I don't need to paint you with any brush. If you think SS is a success story, you've pretty much shown us who you are. The fact that it is abused goes to the heart of socialism - when you give something for nothing, the number of people deemed as "needy" and "disabled" increases. SS, like all socialist programs, was doomed for failure from the start. Just because some people benefited does not make it a success.

grind your ax for less government

Pro Capitalism, pro unfettered free markets, and PROUD OF IT BABY!!!!!!!

[oldcomputerguy]

"Pro Capitalism, pro unfettered free markets, and PROUD OF IT BABY!!!!!!"

I could be wrong but my take is that your are in love with yourself and the "idea" of idealism. Do you have some libertarian bumper stickers on your car too. That would be a clue.

I think they had just the climate you espouse back in 1890. They called the workplace "sweatshops" as I recall. I have no desire to go back to that environment and I doubt you do either when push comes to shove. I am not convinced your ideals are well conceived. As I said, I could be wrong.

[libertarianPA]

I could be wrong but my take is that your are in love with yourself and the "idea" of idealism.

I'm actually more in love with the ideals that this country was founded on.

I think they had just the climate you espouse back in 1890. They called the workplace "sweatshops" as I recall.

It would really benefit you to read a little more history and economics. No prosperous society went from poverty to prospertiy in one day. Even the most prosperous societies had people working in (by today's standards) less-than-favorable conditions. Even under those conditions, those workers still earned more and were able to buy more than they could have working back on the farm.

You might not realize it, but it's you who think the world should be fair. I've accepted it's not. I understand that even in wealthy societies that there are poor people. I also understand that capitalism allowed to thrive without government intervention is the best opportunity for the poorest people. You think the government is a person's best chance.I am not convinced your ideals are well conceived.

I honestly don't care. I am not about to believe that I can convince a socialist that my ideals are well-conceived.

[oldcomputerguy]

I can convince a socialist "

I am not a socialist, I simply recognize that government has a role to play in any successful country. The real problem is not with government, but that fact that sunset provisions are not mandated in the Constitution. If every law passed expired in time, we would be much better off and government would be a lot more responsive.

It would really benefit you to read a little more history and economics.

I am actually a history buff but it is not necessary as you are the self proclaimed expert in all these areas. I am sure you will fill me in.

[libertarianPA]

I am not a socialist

Sure you are. I'm tired of liberals who don't think they're socialists. I hear it all the time - "I'm not a socialist, but I think Social Security is a good thing." You are a socialist if you believe government should determine economic policy, by definition. You are a socialist.

government would be a lot more responsive.

The founding fathers did not mean the government to be responsive. Lockean political philosophy is based on a hands-off government that doesn't intrude on its citizens' lives.

I am actually a history buff

American history? Because you certainly wouldn't know it by your statements.

you are the self proclaimed expert in all these areas.

Please give me the quote where I proclaimed to be an expert. I'm having a hard time finding it.

I am sure you will fill me in.

I don't know man. You're way to far down the liberal path for me to fix. But anything I can do to help, just let me know.

[kabar]

Funny. I thought the purpose of Social Security was to create a situation in which a retiree didn't HAVE to worry about his retirement.

Not really. The system was created in 1935 as more of a safety net than the main means of support in retirement. Under the 1935 law, what we now think of as Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added.

The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program.

Unfortunately, too many people are laboring under the misguided assumption that you are. In 1950 there were 16 workers supporting every retiree, today it is 3.3 and in 2030 it will be 2. This Ponzi scheme can't continue as it is. It will be changed, the only question is how.

[libertarianPA]

Unfortunately, too many people are laboring under the misguided assumption that you are

I guess I have to use the "/sarcasm" next time.

[kabar]

While I am against a nanny state, even mandating people to make long term saving choices seems very risky to me. Many people can't fill out a 1040A without the help of H&R Block or keep a checkbook balanced. How in the world could we ever expect them to make wise long term savings and investment choices?

If personal accounts were set up like the Federal Thrift Savings Plan, people would have a limited number of choices, which would consist of index funds and USG treasury instruments and bonds. It works.

There would still be a smaller defined benefit portion of SS.

[kabar]

I will strike you from my statement.

[libertarianPA]

It's OK. Sometimes it's hard to tell when it's written instead of spoken. No offense taken