Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Yea, I think it should be abolished so that the younger generation doesn't have to pay the retirement of all the baby-boomers. That wouldn't be fair.
Really? We baby boomers have been footing the bill for SS since 1960, so now YOU want to punish us? Get a life, already!
Social Security was originaly intended to SUPPLEMENT ones retirement nestegg . . . However, greedy politicians and the like wanted to do more with it = so now we have the unholy mess that we have. Just shutting the thing off will not cure any of the ills we have created in the name of greed, when all we have to do is return it to its original intention.
That is my not-so-humble opinion.
The argument that younger people should not be footing the bill for old people to retire sort of misses the point that people will be doing that anyway. Most people tend to be somewhat fond of their grandparents or their own parents for some reason. And probably people who can least afford to will have this burden.
Yes it's a tax on young people or a sort of ponzi scheme the way it's set up now. But it's one that has some arguable social utility by removing (some of) the financial burdens of caring for aged relatives from working class people, who could then fund their own retirement or provide for children's education costs instead. At least in theory that's a sensible program to require people to set aside some of their money such that they are attended to at a modest level of poverty in old age. It bothers me more what we're forced to put the money into (and by extension the ability of government to control it as part of the general fund or to pretty up the budget deficit figures) than that I should have to put aside some money so I don't burden someone else with the cost of taking care of me.
What you really need to do is alter the system so it complies with some measure of personal choice and control. A government annuity for old age insurance is a valid and safe retirement product choice. But it shouldn't be seen as one people are forced to get either. Phasing that part out over time shouldn't be terribly difficult. I'd rather they moderate it such that contributions, even if they remain compulsory at some fixed level of income, are more like private retirement accounts and go into almost anything, perhaps with some incentives for things like government bonds to make them attractive relative to capital investment, and also aren't subject to the government telling you how much you can get back out at a particular time. Considering existing basic tax rules which already govern retirement accounts I don't see why we treat this one as different and surrender some marginal ability to control our own money.
No keep it going baby!
I sincerely hope it's still around when I retire. I'd love to have the supplemental income it would provide when the time comes. I agree it needs some revamping, but it is a noble system that allows us to continue looking after our elderly. My grandmother has no other income aside from SS, ( my grandfather passed away long ago so there was no pension for her, and no 401k from the jobs she worked). Thankfully there is senior housing near my parents which has lovely homes for seniors who are on a SS only fixed income.
So yes, keep social security (even if it's a bit socialist in its ideals), because I'll certainly want it some day. And to say that the young are paying to keep the old in paychecks is really a poor statement. The elderly paid in, and so did the slightly older generation who isn't at that age yet but will be very soon. And man, when you get to be that age you'll be glad your kids/grandkids are paying in so you're not living in a terrible terrible nursing home somewhere eating cold beans and waiting for the cold grip of death….
Abolish social security?
There are people who worked their whole life to pay into their retirement.
You do realize your money has been used to pay the current/ex retirement people. Your money is not there anymore.
It's a cycle. As long as new people keep paying in to the fund, people keep getting paid….because in reality, the SS fund is not there. It's barely keeping afloat because of the payments of younger people who haven't yet retired. In turn, our retirement will be paid by still younger people.
As long as people are still paying into it on a very regular basis, the system works fine, albiet inefficiently and with a lot more money than it should. But it is by no means the best, or even the brightest, system.
If I'm not smart enough to save for my own retirement, then I deserve whatever I get.
We need to phase it out.