Not Moving on Up (What Social Security reform would mean for blacks)

National Review ^ | January 4, 2005 | Rich Lowry

[Coldwater Creek]

On the other hand, my Husband became blind long before 65, Social Security Disability was very welcome in our home.

[waverna]

Those who don't trust the evil authoritarian corporations could choose CDs or even T-Bills. T-Bills have returned an average of 4% over time which is worlds better than SS. If we can trust the gov't to pay SS then we can trust that same gov't to pay the interest on its T-Bills.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

I was not referring to valid reasons but the scum that mis use the system.

I still think the SS was the start of the destruction of American families.
The second was Abortion.
The last is homosexual marriage.

[Grendel9]

I agree with you. Once we got the two kids through college and on their own (during the late 70's), the wife and I started investing any pay raises we got. It was amazing
how quickly it added up. We've been retired now since
the early 90's and our monthly income is more than adequate for us to live comfortably, vacation annually, and occasionally help out the grandkids financially. Social
Security is the smallest check we receive every month.

As we've advised our heirs, it's NEVER too early to start saving for your seniior years.

[TontoKowalski]

I know I would not want my payroll taxes going to Wall Street.

If I'm remembering correctly, the private accounts are a voluntary mechanism, and folks who feel like you can continue with the traditional system and its low rate of return.

With the proposed system, the rest of us get some options for how we'll manage our retirement.

[Safetgiver]

SS : welfare.

[Risa]

>>Republicans ... touting social security reform by
funneling black tax dollars to the very people who
helped disenfranchise them. ...I don't think this makes any sense. What are you saying?
<<

You are right-the statement is utter nonsense,
and I wish to retract it. Besides that, I do not
know who among the Republican party tried to
suppress the black vote, not yet, but I do know
that no one has accused 'Wall Street.'

Thanks for challenging me on a bad, bad mistake.

[gridlock]

...do you see Wall Street as a solution to this problem? Would it be best to just get rid of the payroll tax and let people do as they wish with it?

The optimal solution is to eliminate the payroll tax and let people handle their own affairs. This, however, will never happen.

If the payroll tax must be taken, it would be best to have it in individual accounts that could be managed by the individual citizen, to invest or borrow against as he sees fit. This, however, will never happen.

If the accounts must be restricted, it would be best let the individual choose from a wide array of investment choices, with certain minimal requirments to prevent investment in undercapitalized penny stocks and the like. This, however, will never happen.

If individual control is not permitted, it would be best to have the investment choices limited to bond markets and govenment issues. This would still yield a better return that Social Security.

Having the govenrment control massive investments in the stock market is a recipe for disaster, and invitation for the camel to stick not only his nose, but his entire head and neck, under the edge of the tent, and a threat to the engine of wealth for the entire country.

[Safetgiver]

In 1992 I began putting $10 a week into an S&P 500 Fund, gradually increasing it to $90 a week now. Investment? Around $20,000. Total? $148,000. YOU do the math.

[Safetgiver]

Would it be best to just get rid of the payroll tax and let people do as they wish with it? OF couse not. People would merely p!ss it away, for the most part.

[Safetgiver]

Sorry. $180 a week now.

[Risa]

>>And a lot of people who get SSI with out ever working, by getting a liar(lawyer) to convince a judge that they can not work because they are drunks, druggies or just afraid of work.<<

Thanks to reform in the later 1990s, the druggers and drunks got kicked off the disability rolls, and they had to go back to work.

There are, however, people who get endogenous brain disorder or other illnesses or disability in life that make it impossible for them to work. I have worked with many of these people - they don't want to have disease or disability, they wish to work and prosper like everyone else. What will become of these people if social security is dismantled? Will it cost the taxpayer more or less to help them. Or should we just let them fend for themselves on the street?

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Don't these people have any family to help them?

A lot of people with older parents say "It is up to the government to help their folks"

[wayoverontheright]

The argument against privatizing social security usually revolves around the assumption that investing in the GOVERNMENT is a safe one, while the MARKET is risky.

Our government is currently in a DEFICIT situation, borrowing from the future. If it were a business, our government wouldn't be able to get a loan to continue operations. Meanwhile, the equity markets are showing cumulative profits in the billions.

Just a thought.

[Risa]

Yes, I agree with your sentiments. You are very smart, and you know how to invest and how to attend to your investments, so you ensure your money is working for you, not for anyone else. And I agree it is very irresponsible to leave one's investments to a so-called-expert salesman. But not everyone is as astute or as intelligent as you are, and so it seems to me that this must be considered when discussing reforms. Some people will invest badly because they are incapable of doing better. And so--how much will it cost to care for these people?

[mc5cents]

Some people will invest badly because they are incapable of doing better. And so--how much will it cost to care for these people?

It is my understanding that both the amount and the investment vehicles that people can choose from will be restricted and controled. I am sure that only "safe" investments will be allowed. Plus it cannot be stressed enough that people will actually own their investments much as you do a 401k now. That is a huge incentive to opt into the system.

[crz]

There is a sad part to this. I/we had the account up to 28 grand just prior to the Oct to Dec crash, and we had only about 7 grand into it..it was all in high risk nasdaq stuff. So by listening to the "experts" we left it in far to long because they said that it was only a correction. It fell to 16 grand and I said thats it! Get it moved like I wanted to in the first place. So we put it all in no risk stocks (for a bit)which do not pay high but are safe. If we would have moved all that when it dropped to say 24 grand, the account would now be at near 80 thousand. But I cant/shouldnt complain as I threw some into the Gold exchange just before it went up and collected a pile on that as well as those in the DOW. Its doing real well now as the market seems stable and we moved about 30% into the defense sector just prior to the gulf war.

You got to use your head on these. As soon as they said its off to war we go I said its time to switch some accounts around. Now for those who would say I was counting on the war to make money, that may be so to some extent, but that money I switched over to those outfits buys stock in their corporations which they use to build up their manufacturing/factorys. People who did that are really contributing to the war efforts.

[crz]

Here is the problem. The polititions are gonna have to do something as in a few years about 40% of us will be supporting 60%-the baby boomers are about to retire en mass! AND SS is bankrupt. Thats right its BANKRUPT. By 2010 it will be about 12 trillion in debt. Why? Because its been robbed of all its assets by the congress and presidents. Ask them how much actual cash is on hand in the SS account..not the balance on paper but actual reserves of money. The answer is, there is nothing there. So by 2010 a very safe bet will be that this government will be in excess of 20 trillion in debt with SS included, 40% of the population will have to burden themselves with 60% AND pay off the national debt. AND they want a national health care to boot? Wont happen, because this government will collapse financially...OR, they will have to triple the income tax, raise the retirment age to 70 plus, reduce SS benefits by over one half and cut the budget over the board by at least 60% Just to keep this government afloat.

OR go to a NRST within the next 2 years in which they only spend next year what they take in this year. I never favored a Nation Retail Sales Tax till I got to thinking. It taxes everyone..illegal immigrants, visitors to this country, rich, welfare people and it taxes imports sold inot this country. But I DO NOT FAVOR mixing the national retirment account (Social Security) into it. Why? Because the lying thieving politions will continue robbing it like they are now. And tax ONLY goods..NOT services. What the heck? Tax services and you'll have them taxing medical and everything...of course thats what they want isnt it? MONEY! MO MONEY MO MONEY MO MONEY is the polititions battle cry.