posted
We are going to be hit with an onslaught of "Ownership Society" legislation, including private Social Security accounts.
On one hand, it seems appropriate that I should manage my retirement account, angling to get the greatest return on the money invested.
The problem is that Social Security isn't an investment. It is a relationship between those currently elderly and the current class of workers. We need to understand the virtue of this relationship. Social Security and Public Education are the two programs that understand the inherent unity of being a citizen of the United States. The workers of today pay a part of their livelihood to the workers of yesterday and the schooling of the workers of tomorrow. We do this because as one nation; we are all tied together. This unity isn't something that can be traded way, or traded up, though we seem to think about everything in this way, from cars to marriage.
This unity isn't something that's a matter of our taste, preference, opinion, or belief. There is a unity of all Americans, and this "Ownership Society," ignores the strength and rightness of this relationship.
It's pushing to atomize us. Strangely, the religious crowd should sense this before anyone else. Religion, by definition, attends to unseen bonds or ligaments which connect people. And ignoring those bonds renders us negligent.
If a 75 year old man is starving because he made some bad investments with his account, our bond to him is not severed.
Social Security and Public Education are profound statements about who we are as a people. It's a claim on who we are as a union. If the government wants to be in the business of offering Individual Retirement Accounts, that's fine, provide incentives for IRAs, work with businesses to make matching funds tax deductible. We could simplify the process. But do not call this, or attempt to violate, Social Security.
posted
Irami, as much as I agree with your sentiments, the nation is in much the same position as a family that cannot manage to care for its grandparents and must put them in a home. It is not an ideal solution, but it is better than failing entirely. This generation simply does not have the money to give, and things are only getting worse.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it's a nice sentiment, but if there is not going to be enough money in the system when I retire, and not enough younger workers to pick up the slack - then the system is broken and needs to be fixed.
If not privatizing a portion - what should be done? Continue to cut benefits and raise the retirement age?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
1) This is one of those programs which is by definition, not about you. The money you pay isn't a down payment on your social security. It's about the quality of society we will suffer to live in. Teresa Heinz-Kerry pays into social security and welfare, and she probably won't recieve a dime out of either. Those programs are not about her. They are about her-connected-with-us.
2) I'm willing to put raising the retirement age on the table. I'll even look to changing it to a food stamp program.
posted
Irami, if it's got nothing at all to do with me, then why does the IRS send me a statement saying how much I am estimated to receive when I retire and it's based on what I've put in?
I have no problem with paying into programs I'll never use. I know I pay into welfare and medicaid and won't likely use either one. But if what I pay into social security is not based on me at all, and isn't about me at all, then why don't we just give everyone the same amount? Why do I get less than someone who worked more years or had a higher salary?
Retirement age is already 67 - you want to raise it to 70? Or higher?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Generally, the benefit is based on your salary because with the differences in cost of living, they want everyone to retire reasonably within the quality of life they had become accustomed. Social Security does fix the percentages to bias it towards those with lower incomes, so that people with the extra opportunity to save, use that extra opportunity to save.
You still aren't paying in for you, you are paying for the greatest generation, and the one after us is going to pay for us.
posted
Irami, have you ever researched much on the eugenics movement? It didn't start with Hitler, but, in reality, much of the blame can place right here in the US. While it happened in quite a few countries, the US was really the leader in it. If you look into it, the parallels and connections between racism, eugenics (and the thought process behind it) and neo-conservative politics is down right scary.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
No, I don't know a thing about the eugenics movement. I just know that the word means, "Good Race."
Some people have natural assets or fortunate social positions, I'm just not sure that those should account for crushing the disparities between the qualities of life in America. I'm all for fair inequalities and rewarding hard work, but we don't get to forget that luck and capitalism don't make us righteous. Duty, attention, responsibility, and understanding do. We live in man-made world with supreme hazards and fallible-- even perfidious-- accountants. I like the US and the guarantor of at least a modest living, I think it gives people a sense of justice, knowing that their lack of talents or connections did not keep them away from being a productive American, worthy of a modest retirement.
posted
Irami, I'll see what I can pull together about it and send it to you. I'm a bit overwhelmed right now, but I'll get to it as soon as I can. Eugenics is making a weird kind of comeback that is rather frightening, but as a minority, I would think you'd be surprised by what our country (lead by leading scientists) nearly accomplished, all the way into the '70s.)
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Privatizing is such a bad idea. Anyone remember how much the idea was being pushed back when Internet stocks were really hot? Privatizing advocates were enthusiastic about the possibilities of investing social security money in Internet stocks... and then the bubble burst, and after that there wasn't much talk for a while.
I know some folks are sincere in pushing for privatization. But I think most Wall Street fatcats* are just drooling at the idea of playing with other people's money.
*No disrespect meant to the fat cat sitting on my lap right now. My cat is a sweetie and would NEVER play with my money... um, no, wait, cats love to play with mice until they're dead... so my cat probably WOULD love to play with my social security money until it's all gone...
posted
Once a crutch is no longer necessary its continued used does more than hinder, it actually harms, and at some point the crutch can no longer be removed.
I don't favor privatizing social security, but possibly not for the same reasons that you do. You stated that
quote:Social Security isn't an investment. It is a relationship between those currently elderly and the current class of workers.
However, even though my friends and family are either members of the current working class or the elderly, none of them receives or expects to receive any payment from Social Security. The reason is not because they're afraid the funds will be gone but because they've provided for themselves through personal saving and investment and thus don't qualify for government support. Rather than seeing Social Security payments as an entitlement for all, which is the way I view public schools, I see Social Security as a way to provide a minimum financial safety net for those who were either unable or unwilling to personally provide for themselves. I think that there will always be people who are either unable or unwilling to provide for themselves, so requiring personal savings and investment is fraught with danger. In addition, we would still have to have some system to provide for people who either willingly or through no fault of their own end up destitute in spite of what ever mandatory "saving" plan is created.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rather than seeing Social Security payments as an entitlement for all, which is the way I view public schools, I see Social Security as a way to provide a minimum financial safety net for those who were either unable or unwilling to personally provide for themselves.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
