Wouldn't this fix the soc. security problem?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ming
SS is a pyramid scheme that is in the process of collapsing. If a private company offered the same deal, they would be prosecuted by the state

Duh! Private companies opperate in their own interest. It's a sceme for profit.

[rah]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I have no problem with providing for stupid people (or unlucky) when they are old. Butwhy not provide for them with their own money? Forced savings plans, or rather trusts so they can't pillage it early.

and you trust the government to set up the rules for this?

Current 401k account exceptions for raiding them shows that the Government would never be able to legislate a method that couldn't be pillaged.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I have no problem with providing for stupid people (or unlucky) when they are old. Butwhy not provide for them with their own money? Forced savings plans, or rather trusts so they can't pillage it early.

If you **** it up after you get access to the trust at 65 or whatever, well screw you ******.

Forcing savings on POOR people is inhumane.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You don't need to force my savings on the poor people if that helps.

[Arrian]

Forcing savings on POOR people is inhumane.

Those are the people who, in theory, NEED Social Security. ****ing hell!

If you want more income redistribution, fine, vote for candidates who want to make the progressive income tax more progressive (raise the higher percentages).

-Arrian

[DanS]

Albert: The system is set up to pay you based upon what you put in over your worklife (not the same as paying you what you paid in). It wouldn't be right to sever this link.

[Velociryx]

Oh lord...here we go....

-=Vel=-
(predicts that this thread is about to be jacked)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
- Say there are too many old people in a public system. The system either reduces pensions (=withdraws its promise of retribution), or taxes the economy like hell to sustain it.
- Now, say there are too many old people in a private system. The pension funds will either have to reduce pensions (=withdraw its promise of retribution, which will be a breach of contract), or demand more and more ridiculous dividends from the companies they own and draw money from.
- Same with the banks: when too many old people demand their money back, the only way the banks can give this money will be to raise loan interest rates, to have sufficient income to pay all those old people, like they rightfully claim.

The belief a private system is more long-term viable than a public one is false. In both cases, you have more and more people getting paid by doing nothing (the retirees), more and more people getting paid by not producing wealth. And thus, in both cases, you have more and more people leeching off the economy.
Whether the redistribution of money -from those who work to those who don't- is made publicly or privately doesn't change anything wrt viability: one day, the economy isn't able to sustain all those old people.

Good point Spiffor

[Patroklos]

Forcing savings on POOR people is inhumane.

Ah.

So there it is, you don't want social security, you want welfare. Excellant. What exactly is social security doing? It is taking their money. I just want to take that same money, put it in an account, and give the same money (bill for bill if you want) back to them.

If you just want to take rich peoples money and give it to the poor (regardless of why they are poor), just say so.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Friggin increased life expectancy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Those are the people who, in theory, NEED Social Security. ****ing hell!

They also have immediate needs Arrian. If their need for savings was greater more poor people would save.

[Arrian]

He does, but that's another debate. Let's leave that alone.

For the purposes of this thread, let us agree to assume that the basic nature of U.S. economics will not change - we will remain an essentially capitalist society - and that the only thing up for discussion is the Social Security system.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

- Say there are too many old people in a public system. The system either reduces pensions (=withdraws its promise of retribution), or taxes the economy like hell to sustain it.
- Now, say there are too many old people in a private system. The pension funds will either have to reduce pensions (=withdraw its promise of retribution, which will be a breach of contract), or demand more and more ridiculous dividends from the companies they own and draw money from.
- Same with the banks: when too many old people demand their money back, the only way the banks can give this money will be to raise loan interest rates, to have sufficient income to pay all those old people, like they rightfully claim.

The belief a private system is more long-term viable than a public one is false. In both cases, you have more and more people getting paid by doing nothing (the retirees), more and more people getting paid by not producing wealth. And thus, in both cases, you have more and more people leeching off the economy.
Whether the redistribution of money -from those who work to those who don't- is made publicly or privately doesn't change anything wrt viability: one day, the economy isn't able to sustain all those old people.

I don't know why you agree with this Kid, it basically states SC is unsolvant no matter what, and is just the current gernation screwing the new ones. I guess you only care about current poor people.

[GePap]

I am fine with forced individual savings accounts- the big question of that reform is what banks that goes into- at the minimum the state has to guarantee that whatever money went in, people will get-that means insuring those savings against possible losses. Strict rules would have to be placed on the ability of people to take money out before they retired (and set the rules of ages). Then there is the problem of people taking out all their money at once, going on a spending binge and then going on the welfare system. And then there is the question of allowing people to invest the money and how, as I said before, we have to insure against loses so that people get back as much as they put in.

We also have to see if state benefits prior to reitrement age would be taxed and also put into such accounts.

Perhaps a state run bank would have to be created to deal with these problems- this brings up the question of who runs it, what kind of loans they give and so forth- cause we have to make sure we get no savings and loans meltdowns, since such a bank would accumulate trillions in a short span of time, making it by far the biggest bank in the world.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Ah.

So there it is, you don't want social security, you want welfare. Excellant. What exactly is social security doing? It is taking their money. I just want to take that same money, put it in an account, and give the same money (bill for bill if you want) back to them.

If you just want to take rich peoples money and give it to the poor (regardless of why they are poor), just say so.

That's what the current system does. The poor only pay a portion of their benefits.