Official Social Security Poll

jc3900 · #1 (**permalink**) 04-21-2008, 07:58 PM

This thread was inspired by the stimulus plan thread.

The question is if you could opt out of social security at the cost of losing the benefits but at the gain of not paying the 15% tax on your income, would you do it?

Yes or no?

Explain your reasoning. My guess is that the only people who will say no are the people that are getting very close to retirement and have almost reached their benefits.

sweeps · #2 (**permalink**) 04-21-2008, 08:08 PM

Can I opt out of paying my property taxes too? That will save me a lot of money.

Oh and I'd like to opt out of dying, please. Dying will be inconvenient for me.

jc3900 · #3 (**permalink**) 04-21-2008, 08:20 PM

Sweeps, by opting out you lose any benefits that would have come from the government. Oh and how much longer do you have till retirement?

cooliemae · #4 (**permalink**) 04-21-2008, 11:12 PM

Where did the 15% come from? Employees only pay 6.2% in to social security and double that if they are self-employed.

As for whether I would opt out, I have to say no, even though I am 30 some odd years away from retirement. And the reasons are not so that I can have the benefits.

It wouldn't happen immediately, but somewhere in the future (assuming we stopped paying social security) the Social Security Trust Fund would run out of money. What would happen to everyone who currently depends of that money?

I don't mind paying in so that those people who need the money get the money.

Though I don't plan on it being around when I retire.

cindyg86 · #5 (**permalink**) 04-21-2008, 11:16 PM

I wouldn't mind opting out of it. I am only 21 right now and don't have high hopes about it being around when it comes time for me to retire.

I'd rather take that money and put it into a private account with a higher return rate! But for now, paying taxes into SS is something I just have to do so I don't mind it so much... haven't known anything different!

sweeps · #6 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc3900

Sweeps, by opting out you lose any benefits that would have come from the government. Oh and how much longer do you have till retirement?

I'm in my mid-30s so I'm a long way to retirement, thanks for asking. The issue as I mentioned in the other thread is it's not about me. Social security is not a retirement fund (although I believe it will be there in some form when I eventually turn 65). It is a crucial safety net for the poor elderly and disabled.

I don't know if your plan to opt out is serious, but I think it should be obvious that the people who would choose to opt out are exactly those that the program needs to survive. So you might as well just cancel the entire program if that's what it comes down to.

Also as cooliemae points out, your figures are wrong. Employees pay 6.2%. If you're also an employer you'll pay an additional 6.2%, but you get a tax break for that. Also you only pay FICA up to a certain income level. So rich people don't pay anywhere near 15%.

disneysteve · #7 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 05:58 AM

I voted no. First off, I currently earn more than the SS income cap so I pay a smaller percentage of my income into the system. Second, I think the system is important. I believe it serves as the sole source of income for about 1/3 of current retirees. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it is reality. Third, though I fully expect SS to be significantly different by the time I retire (I'm 43), I don't expect it to disappear. I think most likely I will see a reduced benefit compared to the current level, but I'll still get a monthly check.

Finally, as noted in the other thread, SS is not an investment plan. It is an insurance policy, an annuity basically. And it provides benefits beyond those given to retirees, including survivor benefits when a spouse or parent dies and disability benefits.

Scanner · #8 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 06:45 AM

I voted no. . .as a self-employed person, I need SSI for basic disability insurance, which the private marketplace is unable to provide in an efficient and profitable manner.

I have no sympathy for insurance companies.

And my vote should count twice because I pay double what most of you pay.

bjl584 · #9 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 07:12 AM

Yes!!! The less that the government has its nose in my business or my finances the better. If I fail with my financial future and fall flat on my face, it's my problem and mine alone.

jc3900 · #10 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 08:54 AM

All of you people who voted no seem to be doing so because it is a safety net for the less fortunate. However, did you not see my post saying that those who didn't want to opt out would still get their money. Assuming that those less fortunate would get the money, I am betting your answers would almost all change to a yes. Of course you might be wondering where all the money would come from. Well, you would have to cut government spending and return to fiscal responsibility for my plan to work. But if we were doing all of this, I think almost all of you voting no(except those that are close to retirement) would give me the yes vote.

disneysteve · #11 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc3900

those who didn't want to opt out would still get their money. Assuming that those less fortunate would get the money, I am betting your answers would almost all change to a yes. Of course you might be wondering where all the money would come from. Well, you would have to cut government spending and return to fiscal responsibility for my plan to work. But if we were doing all of this, I think almost all of you voting no(except those that are close to retirement) would give me the yes vote.

You are talking hypothetical stuff that is purely fantasy. Sure, if the government could come up with a way to pay SS benefits to those who stay in the system without it costing taxpayers a penny by cutting spending, that would be terrific, but it ain't gonna happen. Plus, what happens to the people who opt out and then become disabled? Who will pay to support them? Who will pay minor children benefits when the breadwinner of the family dies after opting out of the SS system?

You keep saying only those close to retirement would vote to keep SS and that simply isn't true since retirement benefits isnt the only purpose of the system.

Joan.of.the.Arch · #12 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 09:24 AM

What kind of official poll is this in which the pollster tries his best to influence the outcome of the poll, even after the yes-no responses have been ticked?

sweeps · #13 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 09:37 AM

LOL Joan... It's like those biased constituent surveys you get from your local politicians. Questions like:

Quote:

In the 14 years since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was enacted, the United States has seen a significant increase in drug importation, watched our trade deficit with Mexico and Canada climb to $919 billion, and lost more than a million living wage jobs to outsourcing. Do you support NAFTA?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Not sure

tripods68 · #14 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 09:47 AM

I voted Yes just for the fact that I won't fully realize my SS benefit until age 67. Even at that age, we really don't know if the funds will actually pay out based on our the actual annual statement. However, if there is a place we can "opt out" even partial contribution say 4%, I can at least directly impact portion of my SS contribution at the utmost maximum.

Broken Arrow · #15 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 10:08 AM

I believe jc is only a teenager...? So, I try to be lenient. Truth is, my son has similar views too. Is this a teenage thing?

But that's OK. I think by having these discussions, we bring out important points that are worth sharing with younger minds?

After all, they'll be running our government and social programs some day. Heaven forbid if they grow older, get in charge, and then do whatever they think is best without having any clue about exit strategies, economic ramifications, the human toll, and other unintended consequences of their policies... or is that too late?

disneysteve · #16 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broken Arrow

I believe jc is only a teenager...? So, I try to be lenient. Truth is, my son has similar views too. Is this a teenage thing?

Yes, I believe he is a senior in high school. Obviously, idealism among the young is neither a new thing nor a bad thing. But with age and life experience, one learns that most issues aren't as black and white as they first appear.

stressedmama · #17 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 11:15 AM

I voted that I would opt out too. I also am one of those young and idealistic people. I believe this is purely fantasy and the govt would never allow for this to happen, but I do believe I could do a better job with my money I pay in then what I will recieve (I'm only 29 and do not expect the program to be worth much when I reach retirement age.) I do agree with DisneySteve that there are to many ramifications to the society at large for this to ever be a reality.

saversaba08 · #18 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 11:24 AM

Yes, I would opt out. For those of us who hope to return to our countries someday, SS deduction is like charitable contribution anyway. You have to have worked for at least 10 years (40 quarters) to qualify for payout.

jc3900 · #19 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Plus, what happens to the people who opt out and then become disabled? Who will pay to support them? Who will pay minor children benefits when the breadwinner of the family dies after opting out of the SS system?

Disneysteve: If SS was ended and you saw a father become disabled and a family that was now living in poverty, would you do anything about it? Why do you need to force people to give to crappy government run chariites? Why can't I choose who I give my money too?

Here is your main gripe with my plan. Under my plan about 95% of the people would have huge benefits. However there might be 5% who become disabled, can't work, etc. What about those people you might ask? Well, because those 95% of the population now has 5 times more money than they would under ss, can't they easily give their money to them?

Quote:

I believe jc is only a teenager...? So, I try to be lenient. Truth is, my son has similar views too. Is this a teenage thing?

I wonder why he has similar views. Maybe because he knows that the system will crash and there will be no money left over. You do realize that SS is forecasted to crash. If it won't crash, it will reduce the benefit like crazy. Without SS he could easily be a millionaire, so what good does it do to have SS for him.

Here is another hypothetical. If we had never started ss in the first place, would it be a good program to implement now?

disneysteve · #20 (**permalink**) 04-22-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc3900

95% of the population now has 5 times more money

How did you arrive at "5 times more money"? If your take-home pay increased by 6%, or even 12%, that isn't 5 times more money.

Do you honestly believe that the average worker will put that extra income into savings? Various surveys have shown that up to 70% of workers currently live paycheck to paycheck. Do you really think if these folks saw their income increase a bit, they would save all that money rather than just spending even more. People typically increase their spending to match their income. Otherwise, virutally nobody would live paycheck to paycheck.

Take away the SS annuity and retirement will become a fantasy for most people. They won't ever be able to retire. I believe currently about 1/3 of retirees get 100% of their income from SS and a lot more get a significant percentage from SS. What happens to those current people and all the future people who would fall into those categories when they reach retirement age?