? ?

(no subject)

« previous entry | next entry »
Jan. 24th, 2005 | 08:26 am

please answer for your age group only

Poll #423966 privatizing social security

if you are 25 or younger, do you think putting some of your money in a private account is a good idea?

yes
7(70.0%)
no
3(30.0%)

if you are 25-30

yes
6(40.0%)
no
9(60.0%)

30-35

yes
6(54.5%)
no
5(45.5%)

35-40

yes
6(60.0%)
no
4(40.0%)

40-45

yes
5(55.6%)
no
4(44.4%)

45-50

yes
3(50.0%)
no
3(50.0%)

over 50

yes
3(60.0%)
no
2(40.0%)

Link | Leave a comment | | Flag

Comments {52}

(Deleted comment)

i

(no subject)

from: i
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 03:33 pm (UTC)
Link

imagine investing all of your life and then, a couple of years after retirement, it is the year 2001 and everything is gone, not just for you, but for millions of other retirees.

Reply | Parent | Thread

(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)

(no subject)

from: occipitaldruid
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 03:34 pm (UTC)
Link

I'm a big fan of having a savings...although I don't think it needs to be your only option either.

Reply | Thread

i

(no subject)

from: i
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 03:36 pm (UTC)
Link

lol. you are only supposed to answer for your own age group :)

imagine investing all of your life and then, a couple of years after retirement, it is the year 2001 and everything is gone, not just for you, but for millions of other retirees.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

SHAY-mus D

(no subject)

from: seamusd
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 03:35 pm (UTC)
Link

Private retirement accounts have been around since the 60s, but they are not right for everybody. Bush simply wants to help some of his rich, corporate campaign supporters by forcing millions of people to do business with them, business the government does a better (non-profit) job doing. Basically, if my financial house were larger and in better order, I might consider an IRA account. But it's not and I don't. This is a bullshit plan that Bush is trying to promote by using the same kind of lying and propaganda he used to get his Iraq war.

Reply | Thread

i

(no subject)

from: i
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 03:37 pm (UTC)
Link

yep. i'm just trying to get a demographic here and maybe educate some of the yes voters.

Reply | Parent | Thread

stardust and gin

(no subject)

from: dancinglights
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 03:55 pm (UTC)
Link

"No" said, I have a socially responsible 401k to which I minimally contribute because my company matches it and lost money to market fluctuations is as much theirs as mine, and personal risk-free savings. I have these things because I don't trust the system already in place. I trust a system put together by Neo-cons to boost American investment crap even less. I'd rather have reduced benefits in forty-some years from something I already consider lost tax money.

Reply | Thread

i

(no subject)

from: i
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 04:11 pm (UTC)
Link

i'm all for investing money outside of social security. 401k accounts are fantastic. you get an instant boost by not paying taxes on the deductions and from your employer's matching funds. i maxed mine out when i had one. despite the vagaries of the market, i still have more than double what i put into it.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

Mr. Brightsides

(no subject)

from: incendiarymind
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 03:56 pm (UTC)
Link

I don't know why I answered "yes." Realistically I don't want any privitization of social security but I do think it's a good idea for people to put away some of their checks personally on top of social security. Maybe making social security into a program where you can put in additional funds and have those invested. I dunno.

Reply | Thread

i

(no subject)

from: i
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 04:12 pm (UTC)
Link

what's wrong with 401k accounts?

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

Just another yellow beach umbrella

(no subject)

from: snowblind
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 04:30 pm (UTC)
Link

I think one of the main problems with SS is the decision that was made years ago, when it had a huge surplus of money and started paying all sorts of benefits for situations other than retirement.

I'm not sure SS was intended to fully cover ones expenses after retirement, but only to supplement it. Private accounts in the stock market haven't dropped to zero, maybe 50% of formal value, still a loss. But as they say, you only lose if you sell.

Being a former public employee in California, in addition to SS, I was required to pay 7% (matched by the employer) of my salary into the CALPERS fund. The CALPERS board uses the deposits to invest for future retirees. I'm fortunate that now being retired, it pays two-thirds of my former salary with annual cost-of-living adjustments. I receive all sorts of job fliers from California utilities having starting positions that pay several hundred dollars more than I now receive from CALPERS. Me go back to work for a couple of hundred dollars a month? I don't think so.

Reply | Thread

i

(no subject)

from: i
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 04:43 pm (UTC)
Link

the surplus should never have been touched.

"you only lose if you sell"

if you are retired and living off your investments, paying for food, housing, and medicine, you have no choice but to sell.

investments outside of social security are a good thing and should be encouraged. 401ks and iras are a good start. taking money from social security is another matter. it is an extension of the rape of the surpluses, designed only to enrich the big players in the stock market.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

Robert

(no subject)

from: gurdonark
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 04:47 pm (UTC)
Link

I'd need more assumptions to be able to answer this one. It's not private accounts per se that are the concern, to me, but what do we trade off if we adopt that approach. Protect historical fixed benefits and still permit some private accounts, for example, and I'm not concerned. Borrow from the future to have our cake and eat it, too, and I'm a bit more concerned.

But I like the approach you're taking, and the implied point you're making.

Reply | Thread

i

(no subject)

from: i
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 06:14 pm (UTC)
Link

i don't think it's possible to protect fixed benefits and permit private accounts without borrowing from the future. i would prefer that the government further enable saving and investment outside of social security. possibly a national 401k-type plan for every employee?

Reply | Parent | Thread

A Tumbuka lad in exile

(no subject)

from: tiwonge
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 05:03 pm (UTC)
Link

I don't understand why there would be any question.

Even with Social Security, it's good to have money in a private account.

Unless you meant that all money should be withdrawn from Social Security and put into a private account. If that's what you meant, it wasn't clear from the question.

I mean, what else am I goign to do with my money? Hide it under my mattress?

Reply | Thread

i

(no subject)

from: i
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 06:17 pm (UTC)
Link

i should have been more specific. as the title of the poll inadequately suggests, i am referring to the bush plan to allow private investment of one's social security payments.

Reply | Parent | Thread

*smooch*

(no subject)

from: ldy
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 05:28 pm (UTC)
Link

Why, for the past five years, has everybody seem to have forgotten that the full name of the thing in question is social security insurance?

Investing, while inherently risky, is good. Investing/risking insurance money maybe not-so-good (in my humble opinion).

Reply | Thread

i

(no subject)

from: i
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 06:19 pm (UTC)
Link

it would actually be great for most people, except for the poor suckers who happen to retire or be retired when the market takes a dump.

Reply | Parent | Thread

James

(no subject)

from: flashfire
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 07:00 pm (UTC)
Link

I could potentially see me doing it as long as it's up to me how and where I put it. I'd want to see what kind of interest rate I could get for it and don't want it tied into anything that would really fluctuate, like stocks of some sort.

But, I think all this talk about SSN being empty is BS.

Reply | Thread

serendipity

(no subject)

from: serendipity
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 07:01 pm (UTC)
Link

I voted Yes. But I think we're thinking of two different things here. If you meant "take some of our money out of your current retirement fund and putting it into a private investment of stocks" I vote No. But if you meant put some savings separate from your current retirement fund into CDs or bonds or other types of investments, I vote Yes.

It's important to diversify your savings if possible. Don't tie everything up in one place, mix it up a little.

Personally, I don't like the stock market, although my father and older brother play the game. CDs might be more conservative, but in a huge crash CD-owners don't lose like stock-owners do.

Reply | Thread

i

(no subject)

from: i
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 07:03 pm (UTC)
Link

i'm talking about privatizing some of social security, hence the title of the poll. change your answer if you want. :)

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

Kevin

(no subject)

from: low_delta
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 07:03 pm (UTC)
Link

I don't think the private investment accounts will change the solvency of the system for better or for worse.

As for my answer, it depends on how much money I expect to have for my retirement. If I think I'm going to be barely scraping by, then I would not put money into the private/investment/risk/gambling part. Come to think of it, if I expect to have more than enough money to retire on, I would probably leave my money out of the investment option, just in case.

Reply | Thread

i

(no subject)

from: i
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 07:06 pm (UTC)
Link

you don't think removing money from the current pay-as-we-go system will affect it's solvency???

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

(Deleted comment)

i

(no subject)

from: i
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 07:25 pm (UTC)
Link

i agree. some of the yes answers are for the wrong reason because of my wording. i like the format with the age groups as i have them, though, because it makes it easier to see the demographic split without going back and forth. oh well. everyone has already expended so much energy in the comments already that rewording might be a waste. maybe i'll do it again when it actually hits congress.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Cairsten

(no subject)

from: kuangning
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 08:22 pm (UTC)
Link

Note that that's in addition to what I pay into Social Security. Not taking money out of Social Security to put elsewhere. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I feel much happier and secure when I look at my 401(k) balance than I ever have or will about Social Security. I know the folks who are on it now need us to keep paying, but I'm not counting on Social Security for my own retirement support.

Reply | Thread

i

(no subject)

from: i
date: Jan. 24th, 2005 08:52 pm (UTC)
Link

the poll was about social security, though, so you might want to change your answer to no :)

Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

wetbaloney

P(r)i[r](v)ate Accounts

from: wetbaloney
date: Jan. 25th, 2005 04:53 pm (UTC)
Link

If private accounts are such a great idea, how come countries with huge budget surpluses (Japan, Saudi, China) invest their funds ingovernment bonds (dollar or euro) rather than in the "market"? This is just another huge ripoff by those seeking to consolidate power, wealth, and privilege in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Haven't any of you youngsters read Brave New World? Wait until your kids end up as deltas.

Reply | Thread