Dismissing Social Security

[littleroc02us]

Tell me what you think of this. What if there was a way you could tell the Government in writing that you no longer want to collect Social Security, which in turn they can no longer pull social security out of my check? I would turn over everything that I have contributed in the past, which is over 23 years. I would be willing to do this if it were allowed. As you can tell I don't agree with the system and would be willing to give it up and use that money saved as an addition to my own retirement, thereby excluding another reason for Gov't run programs that fail. Would you do it?

[Joi]

Oh how I wish that we could opt-out of social security! Such a waste.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

I don't think Social Security is a waste. At the very least, I am glad that the mean gun-totin' great-gramma down the street is not after me with her palsied hands aiming that mean gun at me. If she did not have Social Security she might look meaner than she is, with that gun flopping around in one hand while she holds out the other for the contents of my wallet. Heck, I think she'd take my blood pressure medicine, too.

[glock35ipsc]

Same here. Even if it meant giving up everything I have put into it in the past, just to able to opt-out, I would do it in a hurry. I'm not going to see every penny I put in anyhow, if any, so heck yes!

[jIM_Ohio]

yes and no

At current age I would not opt out, but once I had more financial security I would. Keep in mind it is disability insurance as well as retirement income.

I am more in favor of raising the age someone can access it to 75 or 80, then indexing that age to life expectancy. If system were designed to "guarantee" that

you pay in about 50 years and take out for about 20 years
and
you always get out what you pay in, and the 50% tax is removed (currently 50% of SS benefits are taxed when income is above 44k or so)
you will not get out more than you pay in unless you live past age 95 (or insert age here) or unless you become permanently disabled.

This keeps system solvent for a long time and its a fairer economic model (to rich people its fairer).

[Joi]

Originally Posted by Joan.of.the.Arch

I don't think Social Security is a waste. At the very least, I am glad that the mean gun-totin' great-gramma down the street is not after me with her palsied hands aiming that mean gun at me. If she did not have Social Security she might look meaner than she is, with that gun flopping around in one hand while she holds out the other for the contents of my wallet. Heck, I think she'd take my blood pressure medicine, too.

I just think it would be nice to have a choice. I feel like my money is being wasted only because it's pretty clear I will be getting back less than I put in.

[jIM_Ohio]

Originally Posted by Joi

I just think it would be nice to have a choice. I feel like my money is being wasted only because it's pretty clear I will be getting back less than I put in.

I am not liberal in too many stretches... however

its good for society to make sure you are not destitute if you become disabled
its good for society to make sure if you have kids with disabilities they have an income source when you die

so 6.2% of my income is "expensive" to provide this insurance, but its better than 0%.

SS is an excellent example of a program which looked good on paper and then got f***ed up by politicians. They had positive cash flow, raised the tax 1200% (and still had positive cash flow) and yet the system is projected to go bankrupt.

Fix the politicians touching it before you remove or opt out of the system IMO.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

SS provides for disability which could happen to anyone. I agree that SS isn't the issue it's more the handling. And they've already shown that it could easily be rectified if they raised the age of SS collection.

Although it currently has been raised from 62 to 67. I think it probably needs to be something like 70 or 75.

[littleroc02us]

I have disability insurance and life insurance for my wife and future kids if I should die and they would be well taken care of. My world is taken care of, I don't want the Gov't involved. IMO, I don't think they should do away with the system, but I just want the choice to get out.

[Joi]

Originally Posted by littleroc02us

I have disability insurance and life insurance for my wife and future kids if I should die and they would be well taken care of. My world is taken care of, I don't want the Gov't involved. IMO, I don't think they should do away with the system, but I just want the choice to get out.

EXACTLY!

[Snodog]

Being 41 and having been paying in for awhile I would not want to give up my SS.

The problems with SS are overblown. In around 30 years the trust fund will be exhuasted but there is still money coming in to pay 78 percent of benifits. And thats only true if the economy grows at a conservative 2.1% which is below the historical norm of 3%. If the economy grows at the same rate as the past SS never runs out of money.

And I think raising the retirement age would be a mistake. Many blue collar workers bodies are broken down long before 70-75. We already have one of the if not THE oldest retirement ages of any industrialized country.

[kork13]

It's one of the many government programs I see as failed or failing. I would happily opt out. I won't retire for another 40 years or so, and I have absolutely zero expectation that SS will still be around by then. Everything I will have paid in throughout my lifetime will be a sunk cost in a failed government program, fouled up by politicians who have no economics experience yet think they can fix the world's economy, let alone our own.

[jIM_Ohio]

Originally Posted by Snodog

Being 41 and having been paying in for awhile I would not want to give up my SS.

The problems with SS are overblown. In around 30 years the trust fund will be exhuasted but there is still money coming in to pay 78 percent of benifits. And thats only true if the economy grows at a conservative 2.1% which is below the historical norm of 3%. If the economy grows at the same rate as the past SS never runs out of money.

And I think raising the retirement age would be a mistake. Many blue collar workers bodies are broken down long before 70-75. We already have one of the if not THE oldest retirement ages of any industrialized country.

My reasoning for raising the age is to make program viable
people should never have expectation SS starts when they retire
or if that is the expectation, do so at a lower rate



Right now full SS benefit starts at about age 66
this means 100% of benefit
if you go for early SS, around age 61, you get 75% of that benefit (I believe)
if you delay SS, you get something like 115% of the benefit I think

To "fix" the system by raising age (so full benefits are age 73-78 and not 66-68 like current system) allows for a few things:

1) People can still be allowed to get access to benefit at age 59.5, but make it 50% or lower of "full" benefit.
2) then tier that % so age 68 is 75% benefit and age 75 is full benefit and age 80 is 115% benefit or something like that.
3) for every 3 people which access money "early" at 66% benefit, one additional person can claim early benefits (basically 4 people collect where only 3 people would claim benefit). The system can almost "bank" on people wanting money early, and that can be used to keep system viable.
4) It encourages people to save for retirement if they do not want to retire at 75 (make age "obscenely" high to help people understand how savings works.

Heck, I could even see a provision which says if you want early access to SS benefits, you must attend 20 hours of financial education (which is offered at community colleges across country). This way people understood how to manage money and plan for retirement.

[dczech09]

Social security was never intended to be a "retirement program" or "disability insurance." Disability insurance is provided by the private sector, as are retirement programs. SS was created to insure people against living past their life expectancy/nestegg. Back when the New Deal was established, the average life expenctancy was 57/58 for men and women respectively. Now, according to actuarial tables, the life expectancy is 77/78; that includes premature deaths. Statistically speaking, if you reach age 65 you are VERY likely to live another 20 to 30 years.

The golden age of 65 became the official draw age and has not changed, although life expectancies have increased dramatically. So for a program to be scheduled to draw out for an increasing period of time over the years, and remain solvent, the amount of time people pay in should be increasing too (thats called math). The problem is that this has not been the case; life expectancies continue to rise, yet the draw age remains the same. Now combined with the fact that baby-boomers are hitting retirement, we have hit a huge problem.

Lets not forget that the SS trust fund is filled with IOUs, not cash. Thats right, it is filled with bonds with our US goverment's name on it. The government has been drawing out more money for other entitlements and taking the money from the fund. So thats problem number three.

The government has tried to whole "increase taxes" thing to try to supplement and save the trust fund for going belly-up. Too bad the politicians are dim-witted when it comes to money, finance, and economics.

Bottom line, this program is doomed to fail. The republicans have right when they say we need to have a grown-up conversation regarding this issue; people just do not want to grow up and face the issue. This is the same problem some people have when it comes to examining their own finances: they know what needs to be done, but no one wants to do it.

There are two solutions: number one is to allow the program to be completely voluntary. Only people funding it can draw benefits, and at a limited amount.

The second solution is to extend the draw age to match actuarial life expectancy. This would not be possible immediately, however a gradual change could be done. Paul Ryan of the budget committee has a "road map" that addresses the SS issues. His ideas are great and have some benefit, however there are sacrifices that need to be made. It is just too bad to people in this country don't want to grow up and make the sacrifices necessary to fix a big problem.

[whitewater30]

It would great if people could opt out now. You can't depend on big brother for anything. DC is never going to let go of Social Security for political reasons. Whether or not SS goes away, each person has to plan for their retirement, but either way, those of us who are responsible to save for our retirements will probrably end up subsidizing those who did not via more taxes to pay for more wasteful social programs. Scares me to death to think what tax rates are going to be 30 years from now.

Take advantage of your Roth Ira while you can.

[KTP]

Originally Posted by whitewater30

Take advantage of your Roth Ira while you can.

LOL if you think the rules on Roth can't be changed by a greedy Congress.

I could see in 25 years when the debt repayment is like 99.9% of GDP they enact a special 15% flat tax on Roth withdrawals.

Look at the current situation. There is talk all around of soaking the rich...it buys votes from those getting the checks. Who is going to be worth more votes? The 10 people who have $1.5 million in a Roth account or the 100 people who didn't save a dime and want more entitlement programs?

[maat55]

I have 30+ years invested in it and I would gladly break away. I would for many reasons. First, is because it is an abomination to personal freedom, second, it is an failing ponzi scheme that progressively cost each generation more than the last, third, I could do better with my own investments.

[maat55]

SS/medicare will end eventually. It along with our other growing number of socialistic programs will destroy the country as we know it. Like with any drug, socialism will soften us and have us depending on others to maintain the programs while more and more choose to sit on the sidelines and collect.

As property(income) rights dwindle so will ambition. It is a fundamental fact that when you take from one and give to another, you encourage less production by both, less production means lower lifestyles overall.

[littleroc02us]

Originally Posted by whitewater30

those of us who are responsible to save for our retirements will probrably end up subsidizing those who did not via more taxes to pay for more wasteful social programs. Scares me to death to think what tax rates are going to be 30 years from now.

Take advantage of your Roth Ira while you can.

I couldn't agree more. Those of us who are responsible and live within our means and plan for retirement are going to have to help those who either never succeeded financially not do to trying (which is o.k.), but for those who spent more than they made by using credit cards and never put money away for retirement. Those are the people that rely on the Gov't to baby sit them. Good luck!

[feh]

Originally Posted by littleroc02us

What if there was a way you could tell the Government in writing that you no longer want to collect Social Security, which in turn they can no longer pull social security out of my check?

Nope. I feel SS is a vital program. Remember - your SS contributions are not being set aside for your retirement. They are being used to support others right now.