Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands June 26th, 2011 12:00am

If you had the option of pulling your own Social Security contributions out of the public fund and investing it personally like a 401k, would you? (UserQ)

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

07/17/11 2:29 am

You all hate your parents, and you only care about your self. That makes everyone who wants accounts to be the worst scum of this earth!

NYevo NY
07/12/11 12:06 am

I invest on my own anyways and think it's wise that there is a separate social safety net.

07/04/11 10:22 am

Chile proves that freedom of choice and freedom from the state increases overall wealth and reduces poverty. The liberal argument against these results..."but old people on social security can't afford an iPhone or iPad, so these results are skewed

07/03/11 1:07 pm

I'm 25 were not going to get social security. So why the f am I paying for it?? So other people can enjoy theirs ? F them

06/30/11 5:59 pm

I'm 27 and I never expect to get a social security payment.

NYevo NY
06/29/11 7:54 am

That makes them a kittle crazy if you ask me

06/28/11 9:35 pm

I'm amazed how many people seem to plan on living off SS alone...

06/28/11 4:30 pm

The people in Dc should see this poll.

06/28/11 10:36 am

Let me control that portion of my retirement not the self interested crooks in DC.

ace California
06/28/11 10:06 am

Social Security has no public fund. In fact, it has no fund at all. It's all bookkeeping. In and out. A conduit account. When the government talks about SS going broke, it means when that time comes when more is going out than is being taken in.

06/28/11 9:39 am

@SlowThink: Right on, right on, right on!!!!

06/28/11 7:30 am

Social security is supposed to be one leg of the three legged stool for retirement. (1) personal savings (2) pensions (3) social security. relying strictly upon soc sec as a means to retirement is neither safe, nor how the planned was meant to be used.

nonlibinVT Vermont
06/28/11 7:17 am

I'm even willing to have the Feds keep ALL the money I've put into SS "contributions" (over the last 35 years) IFF they would cease deducting from my paychecks immediately.

NYevo NY
06/28/11 5:48 am

You know what?That's just wrong. For some people a 401k is the best option. When you dont have lots of extra money, getting a pre-tax investment opportunity is a great option for some who would otherwise not have any real investment money available. Then with a company that matches. Its a no brainer

06/28/11 12:41 am

The question says control your own money, not that it has to go in a 401k, if the only thing you know about investments is either SS or 401k, maybe you shouldn't keep your own money

06/27/11 11:16 pm

Sure. How about I put it all in enron? Wall street should not be the only source of retirement

coloradical Vote or Shut Up
06/27/11 9:52 pm

I remember GW's attempt at overhauling the SS system and how he travelled across the US to explain our pending doom. He was beat up pretty bad over it.

06/27/11 9:32 pm

The elderly will not throw the next generation under the bus...

CGGALT Indiana
06/27/11 9:25 pm

Mega, I hear what you're saying, but I think you can also point to AARP and the like that have spent millions lobbying and striking fear into the elderly. Those who expected to receive and are now relying on SS should not lose it. If the elderly understand they won't lose they will support change.

CGGALT Indiana
06/27/11 9:22 pm

My 401k is doing great Houston. Diversification is a wonderful thing. You can't blame WS for all your losses. DC is supposed to provide regulation and oversight. They were asleep at the wheel. Read up on it - plenty of books on the subject now.

06/27/11 9:12 pm

Yeah, let's give our SS money to Wall Street! I mean they did so well with our money the last 4 years right? How's that 401k doing?

eradicator JC
06/27/11 9:10 pm

Do you all understand how SC works?

NYevo NY
06/27/11 5:15 pm

@megaditos: I agree on both points. Next I wonder what agreements could be had on what those changes would be?

06/27/11 4:58 pm

@NYevo: Social security was meant to be a safety net, not a hammock. Everyone here seems to understand that changes need to be made to the current system. Unfortunately, the elderly will come out to vote in mass numbers to ensure changes are not made.

dotnetdev Georgia
06/27/11 4:56 pm

Wow. Over 1/2 Democrats would do it. C'mon guys, practice what you preach.

06/27/11 4:36 pm

Sesame seeds....? Idk

NYevo NY
06/27/11 4:24 pm

@megaditos. I believe in the social safety net. It was passed as law by our representatives. I don't get anything from you. Our elders get it.

06/27/11 4:01 pm

@NYevo: Don't you dare demand the contents of my pocket for your poor decisions. Take some frickin' personal responsibility. Boo frickin' hoo!

NYevo NY
06/27/11 4:01 pm

Cont. To get some type of welfare? If opt out ever became an option,that person should not be eligible for $ from gov..The sad part there is that many folks will then undoubtedly become a burden on their family or become destitute in old age. This is the reason why SS was created I'm the first place

06/27/11 3:59 pm

@NYevo: I'm going to remain calm even though reading your last comment makes my blood boil. Your life is your responsibility. If you make poor choices such as; dropping out of school, not attending college, gambling, drug or alcohol abuse, making poor investments, etc. that's tough shit for you.

NYevo NY
06/27/11 3:53 pm

@unforgivn: I guess I am wondering how you do it when the SS tax collected from us now is not being used for us, but rather those retiring now. And I also ask, what happens to those who make bad investments (or simply retire during a market crash), end up with nothing, and then want....cont:

06/27/11 2:53 pm

Every proposed change to social security involves a later retirement date along with higher contributions. And, again, those aged 55+ would be exempted from any adjustments. I'd also like to see an "Opt Out" plan as well, but good luck wrestling away that power from the federal government.

CGGALT Indiana
06/27/11 2:42 pm

What proposal have you seen that requires retirees to give up anything?

06/27/11 2:00 pm

Unfortunately for the social security reform issue, old people vote in much larger numbers than young people. Nanny and pappy ain't givin' up their gravy train without a fight.

CGGALT Indiana
06/27/11 11:23 am

Mega, do you and folks your age not get a vote. Elect politicos with some nards!

06/27/11 10:39 am

(cont) citizens and reduce government involvement. I think that makes sense and is reasonable. Heck, we have some private roads (tolls) and I can choose to use them. Let me choose in SS too.

06/27/11 10:38 am

@NYevo: Of course taxes are necessary and while I favor a flat National Sales Tax (Fair Tax), I'd never favor eliminating taxes. The problem is everybody has a different idea of how much government should do. I personally think a private SS system would benefit (cont)

06/27/11 10:27 am

@CGGALT: It absolutely is grandma and grandpa's fault. How do you think those politicians in Washington got there? Because our greedy grandparents made damned well sure to elect politicians who supported the social security gravy train. To hell with their precious grandchildren!

daver141a New York
06/27/11 8:27 am

It may well expand government, but what do we do with those people who don't invest wisely or at all? While I am tempted to say let them starve (or go without medical care), I am not sure I could be so cold blooded. It really is a question of the role of govt. I think it should help people

06/27/11 7:58 am

I just read other comments: Living in a society together? If you think SocSec is about caring for the elderly more then expanding Government, your an idiot. That, and the fact that this society is governed by a Constitution that primarily states the Individual is not sacrificed to the collective.

06/27/11 7:53 am

This should have one more option, to not invest in any way as instructed, enforced and forced by law. Seriously, anything more unconstitutional then telling me how much if my earnings I have to save? And, anything more ignorant then the politicians in DC giving financial advice?

NYevo NY
06/27/11 5:06 am

@unforgivn: I find myself agreeing on one hand and disagreeing on the other. How many different things are there which take taxpayer money and direct it to someone or something other than me or you? It's taxation. It's what it does. And we get representation to guide it. Can there be no taxes then?

06/27/11 2:45 am

uh yes, in a heartbeat

06/27/11 1:04 am

Cont. He's 30, if you're disabled (and not morbidly obese disabled) you can start receiving at 60, otherwise work till your unable, that alone would help the solvency (not solve). Lots of common sense ideas, not a lot of common sense politicians

06/27/11 1:01 am

You're not selfish for wanting to control your own money, you're not socialist for caring about others. Keep your money, invest it as you see fit, contribute to charity for taking care of the elderly if you are so worried about it. Btw, SS at 62??? come on now, my dads 65 and he moves around like..

06/27/11 12:52 am

I can invest my own money better, so yes. Shame on you rstoffer10 for that very backwards statement.