The discussion centers around the potential privatization of Social Security, exploring its implications for various demographics and the broader economic context. Participants examine the motivations behind privatization proposals, the perceived crisis in Social Security funding, and the potential effects on disability benefits and other social programs.
Participants do not reach a consensus on whether privatization is beneficial or detrimental. Multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of privatization for Social Security and its associated benefits.
Participants highlight the complexity of the issue, noting that privatization could have far-reaching effects on various social programs and the welfare system. There are also unresolved questions about the feasibility and desirability of transitioning to a privatized system.
What is the problem usually? Politics exacerbated by the fact that people tend to act irrationally when their money is involved.kcballer21 said:Well, here's Krugman's take: From 'The Economists' Voice'
From this article and the many other I have read, it seems the social security issue is an easy fix. So what's the problem?
russ_watters said:Another part of the issue is timeframe: Someone who is in their 60s doesn't much care what happens to Social Security 30 years from now and will fight (vote) tooth and nail to prevent any changes. Someone in their 30s cares greatly about it and will fight hard to make positive changes. And a lot of what would be positive for a 30 year old and 60 year old are mutually exclusive.
I made choices in the past, sometimes with difficulty, so as to not be dependent on the government when I retired. I'm sure there are many like me who wish to rid their children and grandchildren of the burden of supporting and caring for their elders.russ_watters said:...Another part of the issue is timeframe: Someone who is in their 60s doesn't much care what happens to Social Security 30 years from now and will fight (vote) tooth and nail to prevent any changes. Someone in their 30s cares greatly about it and will fight hard to make positive changes. And a lot of what would be positive for a 30 year old and 60 year old are mutually exclusive.
Kerrie said:it might be beneficial for america to analyze the perspectives of europe's retirement system when it comes to the elder generation...perhaps compromise that into a corporate/free enterprise system?
I'm glad to hear that, but I'm sure you know that some of the most fervent supporters of the current system are those now (or soon to be) getting money from it. My dad gets AARP magazine and there is an article urging opposition to any changes in virtually every issue. You're a minority.GENIERE said:I made choices in the past, sometimes with difficulty, so as to not be dependent on the government when I retired. I'm sure there are many like me who wish to rid their children and grandchildren of the burden of supporting and caring for their elders.
Only a young fool and a selfish bastard would want to preserve SS in its present form.
"The date at which the trust fund will run out, according to Social SecuritySomeone in their 30s cares greatly about it and will fight hard to make positive changes
Maybe, but they don't have to be disasters. "The bigger problem for those who want to see a crisis in Social Security’s future is this: if Social Security is just part of the federal budget, with no budget or trust fund of its own, then, well, it’s just part of the federal budget: there can’t be a Social Security crisis. All you can have is a general budget crisis."(Krugman) Which means that instead of making SS the immediate problem, maybe fiscal incompetence should be addressed.Social security and medicare are currently disasters.
Maybe, but Britain can teach us something about the actual costs of privatization in the form of fees. SS isn't perfect, but it isn't going directly down the tubes. It would work fine if the trust fund was treated as a 'lock box' and if the gov't were not so reckless. To paint partial privatization as this cure-all that we have been denying ourselves for decades is to be deceptive. Did anybody read the article?Europe has nothing to teach and much to learn from the worlds oldest constitutional government.
kcballer21 said:"The bigger problem for those who want to see a crisis in Social Security’s future is this: if Social Security is just part of the federal budget, with no budget or trust fund of its own, then, well, it’s just part of the federal budget: there can’t be a Social Security crisis. All you can have is a general budget crisis."(Krugman) Which means that instead of making SS the immediate problem, maybe fiscal incompetence should be addressed.
There is controversy over the numbers, but that's not the only reason to want a change: if you invest your money conservatively, you can do far, far better on your own than with SS. So its not just about whether or not the system will stay afloat or fail, but how well will it do what it was designed to do.kcballer21 said:"The date at which the trust fund will run out, according to Social Security
Administration projections, has receded steadily into the future: 10 years ago it was 2029, now it’s 2042. As Kevin Drum, Brad DeLong, and others have pointed out, the SSA estimates are very conservative, and quite moderate projections of economic growth push the exhaustion date into the indefinite future."(Krugman)
It appears that the urgency of the situation has been exaggerated for political purposes.