If the partial privatization of social security is 'OPTIONAL' why are people afraid of it? You have your own choice, nobody is twisting anybody's arm to participate... so if you have a choice to get in on a conservative mutual fund, or just stick with what you have, what's the problem? It's your choice, nobody else's, why the fear? If you don't like the idea, well don't do it...

I think peoples intelligence are underestimated as far as our own decisions are concerned....

If you don't like it...don't do it... if you like it do it... what's the problem?

What's your take?

Tranny.......I think peoples intelligence are underestimated as far as our own decisions are concerned....

I agree. That's the difference between believing in yourself, rugged individualism, self reliance and responsibility, as compared to socialistic or comunistic forms of government. I choose the former. I believe in YOU!

The current rate of savings of the American public is slightly under 1.8% of gross earnings. Simply put, the average American household of 4, two adults, two children, earning $50K per year will only save on their own, $900.00 annually. Their average credit card debt is $8000.

Most people don't know the difference between a load and no-load fund, a stock, a warrant, an option, a bond, a certificate of deposit.

The system of privatization will not be optional. It's too difficult to service and maintain, if everyone isn't in the system. It'll necessitate a corporation like FDIC to insure against losses. That will require contributions from everyone.

If there is partial privatization, two things will happen immediately. Both employer and employee contributions will rise above 6.5% and the $90K cap on FICA assessed earning will rise to $140K or higher.

Steve*R

excellent appraisal.

i hope my agreeing with you doesn't trouble you. sometimes agreeing with me makes people put us in the same boat. jonr i believe refered to adroomi and me as lovers, but you know enough about him to deal with it.

Mike,

The system as currently configured uses worker and employer current contributions to cover current monthly expeditures (retirees and disabled). We are currently contirbuting more on an annual basis than we are spending (and the government is borrowing the money for the general fund). The time is quickly approaching when the system will be paying out more than it is taking in. At that time the government should start paying back all the money that it borrowed. That money will run out in about 20 more years (I think but could be more or less). If we divert current contributions in full or in part to private accounts, there will be less funds to pay current benefits and one of the following will have to happen, witholding rates will rise, cieling of about $90K will rise or benefits will need to be reduced. That is what people are afraid of.

raising the ceiling seems to be the fairest way to bring in more funds. someone earning above 90K will be less affected then raising the rate and hurting the lower income people the most.

of course congress men and women and senators get more contributions from people who earn more money, so they will probably raise the rate.

Chicken Little was right! LOL

Let's play guess the quotee. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Damn baby boomers ruining SS for the rest of us...

Another question comes to mind

Why were the democrats in congress so supportive of partial privatization of SSA when Clinton was in office and are now all are opposed to privatization in any form presented

Or is the answer so obvious

allbidness

jefferson

He had a way with words, rickamaven, didn't he.

If only we could still "throw off such Government"; but, everyone who even speaks out is labeled, boxed, and buried.

Few remember who was responsible for forcing the IRS to prove the guilt of the accused. Few know who this hero is who continues to languish in prison. Such is the price those few are willing to pay!

allbidness

that's a name i don't know. who is he or she?

my dentist has been to jail many times because he refuses to even file his taxes.

we each have our own way of dealing with oppressive bureaucracy.

i am writing a little note about the very thing you are talking about. a few more days and i'll post it.

What's the rate of return of SS payments?

What you all say is intertesting... let me toss this into the fire... why is it that senators have the choices for their SS & we dont?

...seems as though it's like the saying goes... do as I say, not as I do...

The question is asked above, "why is it that senators have the choices for their SS & we dont?"

There are a handful of senators and congressmen who don't pay into Social Security. They were all elected prior to 1984, when all federal employees, including elected officials paid into the Civil Service Retirement System. The percentage they paid and continue to pay exceeds the 6.5% others pay into Social Security. All officials elected after 1983 and federal employees hired after 1983 participate in the Federal Employees Retirement System. They pay a percentage of gross into the retirement system and an additional 6.5% to Social Security.