Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 10 years ago

Question to those who favor privatizing social security?

Are retirement funds supposed to be stable and secure?

or are they supposed to flucuate at the mercy of the stock market?

There's a lot of things that could be done to clean up this social security mess........

but privatization is not among them.

Your solution is to throw the money into the unpredictable stock market?

18 Answers

Relevance
  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    That is not how it works Louis,,,,,,,,,,,,,See a private retirement account invests in high risk options when you are young, and as you grow older those high risk investments are moved to lower risk bonds, so when you are close to retirement you have mostly low risk investments which are very secure.

    If any private retirement company was run like the government runs SS they would be in jail.

    SS is a tax, and your benefits can be changed or denied without reason at any time.

    How about giving the citizens a choice Louis, if you want to trust the government with your retirement then go ahead and I will trust my 401K.

    But see most democrats do not want to give a choice.

  • Tom W
    Lv 6
    10 years ago

    For sure seniors are caught in the constant battle between stupid conservative views and the wildly ridiculous views of liberals. SS is easy. Its not an entitlement, its a financial contract between citizens and their government. People who work, especially baby boomers, have paid into the fund for 40 plus years of their lives. They have had no choice, its the law. And their employers have to match and nearly dudoublehat. The fund was huge in the 80's and 90's and Congress could not let it alone, especially liberal legislators. They would invent new big feeling social programs and take the money from the SS fund, and why not it was cash, it was plentiful and we are wonderful because we are helping someone else and they will vote for us. Did the Gov pay for those new programs? No, the working class did. And now that the boomers are at retirement age we have Dems saying there is no money and Republicans saying that we need to reduce this or do away with it. And both call it an entitlement which it is not. Its money stolen from the people. Not in some obsucre way but stolen from them personally. Now, in pure terms the unfunded mess made by Congress is not that bad, not so bad that we have to start trying to turn young people against old and threaten to starve the seniors. The money was there, it was stolen by the Federal Gov and spent. So put it back! Impossible? Hardly. For what Obama has spent so far bombing Libya would balance it. What is spent every six months in hopeless Afghanistan would fix it. So what is the message. We don't care about our own citizens and we will renege on the contract we made with our citizens and who we forced (by law) to contribute to a fund and that we, as government swiped. And yet we have more concern that citizens in Libya may not be treated well so we are going to intervene and commit billions to bombing people so they won't be harmed...but when seniors, who paid into a fund, may be in need...we got nothing there. Obama has been the worst at this so far as he is the most cold blooded politician and has determined that the seniors may not vote for him so he could care less if they just die now. Thats why politicians are what they are and people who idolize or even listen to them are fools.

  • 10 years ago

    It is possible to privatize without losing the security in Social Security. Al Gore had a Social Security proposal that included a provision that allowed people to invest of some of their SS benefits in the stock market. All the Republicans plans that I have seen privatized Social Security but added too much risk to be a good solution.

    There are other solution like controlling the growth of benefit using a different inflation index.

  • 10 years ago

    "Are retirement funds supposed to be stable and secure?

    or are they supposed to fluctuate at the mercy of the stock market?"

    That depends on how you plan for your retirement. Did you invest in something secure? Did you choose to invest in the stock market? Did you choose to invest in real estate? Did you choose to invest in starting your own business?

    "Your solution is to throw the money into the unpredictable stock market?"

    No, the stock market is not trustworthy, so I would invest elsewhere. Maybe real estate, maybe precious metals, maybe start my own business.

    It is not a question of stability, is a question of liberty and freedom. I have the basic human right to choose my own retirement option. I can even choose not to retire if I want to. Maybe I like my work and want to keep working till the day I die. The point is that it is my basic human right to choose. The government does not have the right or authority to put a gun in my face and force me into their program at gun point because "it's for my own good".

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    It is a great idea when you know the facts.

    Look at Galveston County that did not pay into SS sence 1980.

    See what they receive.

    You wrote:

    Your solution is to throw the money into the unpredictable stock market?

    ___________________

    Me; unpredictable stock market is not the only option. LOL

    Secured 6% is an option too. Better than the Fed Spending it.

    If you die before you Collect it goes to your kids. It is YOUR money.

    Please do not choose best answer for who only who agrees with you.

    If you do that then why are you asking a question?

  • ?
    Lv 4
    10 years ago

    I disagree. The government risks your money as well, and there are many safe investments that return a far greater percentage than SS. The government just wants the loan, and then they might give you some back, maybe.

    Partial privatization is the only way to go; or dismantle the program all together

    The government cannot be trusted, period!!!

  • ?
    Lv 5
    10 years ago

    You left the government with authority over SS and now they have used it to fund sht like the arts. Personally, I will do a much better job planning for my retirement than the govt will.

  • ?
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    Hmm. What occurred to my 401-k plan? Oh! I nonetheless have it. i'm nonetheless accumulating it. the yearly document shows capital enhance. by technique of ways how is authorities run SS doing those days? what's the prospectus? teach us the Democratic plan for it. further: Opting out does no longer advise no longer having retirement funds it advise paying into your own annuity and having a more beneficial valuable go back price on your plan. It does no longer advise being depending upon society.

  • ?
    Lv 5
    10 years ago

    Answer. SS should be eliminated. Gimme back what I put in with interest at the rate of inflation. Govt has no biz in the retirement biz (or healthcare for that matter). Govt involvement breeds corruption & bureaucracy. I contracted in IT to SSA. What a waste of tax dollars!

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    I supported privatizing social security until I saw the stock market destroy my 401(k). Privatizing is nothing more than a con-artist's trick at best. Good people would be left penniless.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.