Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
My mistake, I was still surprised from GEICO and thinking auto insurance.
|
You're not alone in that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Actually it is. It's revolutionary that the government was going to take care of you.
|
Is this in response to "I should also point out that the New Deal is hardly unique in the world." or something else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Again, you'd like the government to take care of you. I'm all for that for you. See the difference here is that Willravel would like to limit Cynthetiq's choices. I'm happy you'd like to have the choice of the government to take care of you and countless others. I'm expecting at least a tip of the hat to have the same respect. Instead, you'd rather force me to do something I don't want to do or feel I can do better on my own. The difference between me and the people like me, is that when I come up short from my own decisions, we take responsibility for them and don't push the blame on someone else OR ask someone else to increase their share because of our missteps or mistakes.
|
I don't think you're getting the gist of my argument. I need the government to take care of me in some ways and not in others. I can't defend myself from unsafe foods and drugs because i lack the time and resources (and education) to do so myself. I can't protect myself from military enemies of the United States, even if I had a gun. I can plan for my future and spend responsibly so that I have a reasonable nest egg when I retire, so I don't personally need Social Security. I can determine what I should and shouldn't watch on TV so I don't personally need the FCC. It's nice that I won't need Social Security or the FCC, but that doesn't mean others don't. Some people absolutely need Social Security. You probably won't need it and I probably won't need it, but a lot of people do need it, and Social Security won't work if we allow people to opt out because not everyone is right in thinking they don't need it. Many people, wanting more money now, will opt out and then fall into poverty when they're older.
I don't know why, but you seem unable to look at this from a collective perspective. You seem only interested in blame. Blame is moot. We live in a world of consequences, and the consequences for the option of opting out will be a great deal of people living in abject poverty, which as I discussed before has consequences that reach all throughout our economy. In allowing people to opt out, you create the situation that will increase poverty considerably.
There's one thing that's been at the back of my mind through this discussion: you're probably going to be paid back. Your average projection puts the end of Social Security in the late 2040s or 2050s. I'll be retiring in 2048, but you'll have retired much earlier. To be honest, I can't remember exactly how old you are (I know you've mentioned it before, I remember it being older than I expected so let's say 40), but that let's say you have 15 years of Social Security checks before the things is supposed to run out, and it will run out around the time you reach the average lifespan of an American male. It wouldn't be crazy for me to suggest you're going to get Social Security just fine. Me? I'll get a few years' worth of money, but it really doesn't matter to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
But imagine during your aging years that someone like GWB comes back around and you don't get the benefits that you waited or counted on or the inflation is so high that your money doesn't buy or get you anything. Or like Medicare, you start shifting assets PRIOR to your dying to ensure that you can get the benefits before the government starts taking it's share of the value of the assets.
|
There's a flip-side to this, though. What if the money you kept in an IRA instead of Social Security was put into some very bad securities (which are common right now) and you end up losing a great deal of what was supposed to be a conservative or safe investment? How's that any different? It's different because you only have yourself to blame for relying on an inherently unpredictable and unstable medium for investment if you chose the market. If you invest in Social Security and it dies because the GOP is still dead set on proving that government can't be trusted, you have something completely different. Politicians can be held responsible for breaking laws and rules (at least in theory). No one is responsible if your investment falls apart.
I'm personally not counting on anything from Social Security, but that doesn't mean I'm not fighting to change what seems likely now. If your average person is concerned about Social Security, your average person should be pressuring their congressman or woman and senator for an increase in the caps. It's not complicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
You may want to live your life like that. I don't, which is why I'd like to opt out if I could. I'm happy to go into another privatized plan that I could select from a marketplace if forced to.
|
I want to have a poverty rate under 12% because I know if it suddenly starts to increase dramatically the economic ramifications will be unpredictable at best. And I don't just mean abstract ramifications, I mean the effect on me and my family, and you and your family. You can't just dismiss that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
and again... with FERS in place, why can't that be offered to every single citizen?
|
Federal Employees Retirement System is like a 401k, right? I'm not really familiar with it.