Forums | MacLife

i don't think the government should tell me what i can/can't do with my retirement money anyway - but if they're gonna force me to put it somewhere, i'd rather be able to have it in a private account.

Chile offers a privatised plan that's having mixed results. Some hold it up as an example of success, others hold it up as a flawed attempt. I don't know enough about it.

Canada's government run retirement plan is partially privatised whereby an arms-length board invests a portion of the fund in public and private sector investments. This federal public pension fund (CPP)  is estimated to run a surplus for the next 75 years and beyond. The contribution rate is fixed at 9%, with 4.5% employer and 4.5% employee.  The province of Quebec runs its own pension fund and does not participate in the federal plan.

NokX wrote:

i don't think the government should tell me what i can/can't do with my retirement money anyway - but if they're gonna force me to put it somewhere, i'd rather be able to have it in a private account.

Its not "retirement money."  Its society's forced contribution to keep orphans from starving, and from poor blue-collar workers from living in abject poverty when they get old.


If you're going to rail against what the government does with your (and my) money, why not take a look at the massive deficits that have been run up by the Federal Government in the past 5 or 6 years.  The current Republicans are full of smurf, and they're not for "small government."

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Isn't this debate academic? Bush's SS proposals are pretty much dead, are they not?

Not to mention expensive, requiring massive investment up front.

Luckily, Bush came up with this scheme right before the stock market tanked. It's a great idea when the markets are up, but in the last 3 years, my IRAs lost a third of their value - this is the first year they've shown an uptick and they are now worth about what I invested in them 4 years ago. Providing the market contiues to go up, which is predicted, I will eventually come out ahead. Most people can't handle these fluctuations.

My husband inherited an Oppenheimer Muni fund worth $145,000 and slipping. We diversified it on my boss' suggestion, and in a month its value went from $145,000 to $151,000. 6 days ago it dropped to $146,00. Friday it was back up to 150,000. Intellectually, my husband knows it is going to fluctuate, but he was really bummed to see 'his' $5000 seemingly disappear overnite. My boss is of the opinion that most people are woefully uninformed and worse, misinformed, when it comes to investing, and we should leave it to the pros like Oppenheimer, Fidelity, etc

Social Security is a safety net, a guarantee that what you put in (barring the current administration's and other's mismanagement) is what you get out of it, if people are allowed to use as much as half of that and invest it themselves or God forbid, allow the government to do so for them, there is no guarantee that they will recoup their investment at retirement. Then what?

We already have retirement investment plans in place: they are called IRAs, Roth IRAs, Keoghs, etc.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Isn't this debate academic? Bush's SS proposals are pretty much dead, are they not?

Not to mention expensive, requiring massive investment up front.

I think the underlying issue of sustainability still needs to be looked at even if Bush's proposal was inadequate.

NokX wrote:

i don't think the government should tell me what i can/can't do with my retirement money anyway - but if they're gonna force me to put it somewhere, i'd rather be able to have it in a private account.

Wow, you must be pretty poor if you need the money from social security. There's only one person in my family who relies on Social Security/Medicare, becuause he lost most of his money. My grandmother may *think* she needs it, but she is living like a queen on my grandfather's pension.

Chickenhawk wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

I think the underlying issue of sustainability still needs to be looked at even if Bush's proposal was inadequate.

Which brings up a deeper question: is reasoned, non-partisan reform possible?

We don't have the money to do anything with social security. Dubya pissed that away long ago. Either keeping it the way it is, or privitizing it requires large sums of money, in the trillions, that we had in a surplus long ago, but are gone now.

The US government had trillions in surplus? When?

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

We don't have the money to do anything with social security. Dubya pissed that away long ago. Either keeping it the way it is, or privitizing it requires large sums of money, in the trillions, that we had in a surplus long ago, but are gone now.

The US government had trillions in surplus? When?

I think that pretty well sums up the partisan question.

Okay, but it's not like it's one-sided, right?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

The US government had trillions in surplus? When?

I think that pretty well sums up the partisan question.

Okay, but it's not like it's one-sided, right?

Humm, let's review history.

Republican-"I'd like to address SSI reform."
Dimocrat- " Republicans want to kill SSI !!!!! omg!!!!!!1111!!! and make you sleep in the streets"

JakeTheTall wrote:

NokX wrote:

i don't think the government should tell me what i can/can't do with my retirement money anyway - but if they're gonna force me to put it somewhere, i'd rather be able to have it in a private account.

Its not "retirement money."  Its society's forced contribution to keep orphans from starving, and from poor blue-collar workers from living in abject poverty when they get old.

If you're going to rail against what the government does with your (and my) money, why not take a look at the massive deficits that have been run up by the Federal Government in the past 5 or 6 years.  The current Republicans are full of smurf, and they're not for "small government."

this is a whole other thread...but it should be up to us to take care of our neighbors - not government.  if my neighbor is hungry, i should want to help him - not be forced to through some mis-spent government "aid".  churches do this sort of thing all the time - $0 tax dollars.

we've built an ugly monster over the years and i don't believe there is a quick fix.  we've created laziness with our "you don't have to work" paycheck system and we've created a lack of respect and responsibility with our government attempting to be in every aspect of our lives.

John F Kennedy wrote:

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

we've lost that.

and i've never agreed with how government spends money, nor do i now.  it's a bunch of people spending other people's money.  the government needs to be grossly scaled back.

bedstuy wrote:

NokX wrote:

i don't think the government should tell me what i can/can't do with my retirement money anyway - but if they're gonna force me to put it somewhere, i'd rather be able to have it in a private account.

It's an insurance plan NOT a retirement account.  It pays for the disabled in this respect.

whatever you want to call it...  personal responsibility.  if i want to have a sound life when i get older, i better start planning now.  i could be out spending the money i've made over the last few years on crap like everyone else my age does, but i've chosen to invest my money.  that's my choice.  and when it comes time to support my family and retire i've earned it through my own work - not relying on other people paying for me.

Chickenhawk wrote:

NokX wrote:

i don't think the government should tell me what i can/can't do with my retirement money anyway - but if they're gonna force me to put it somewhere, i'd rather be able to have it in a private account.

Wow, you must be pretty poor if you need the money from social security. There's only one person in my family who relies on Social Security/Medicare, becuause he lost most of his money. My grandmother may *think* she needs it, but she is living like a queen on my grandfather's pension.

i don't want to pay for social security.  i'd rather take that $X/month i pay into it now and put it towards other investment opportunities that i feel would be better suited for my future.

how did that person loose their money?

and look - i'm not saying take away all the social security money now, or anything at all like that.  we've created a system - let's follow through.  many would be screwed if we stopped now.  but - let's don't keep going in this circle of a mess and at least provide some alternatives.

NokX wrote:

this is a whole other thread...but it should be up to us to take care of our neighbors - not government.  if my neighbor is hungry, i should want to help him - not be forced to through some mis-spent government "aid".  churches do this sort of thing all the time - $0 tax dollars.

We tried that once -- it was called the Great Depression -- and it didn't work so well.