jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (47 posts)

Who wishes they could opt out of social security?

  1. N. Ramius profile image67
    N. Ramiusposted 7 years ago

    I wouldn't pay in and wouldn't collect in retirement. I wish they'd let me do that.

    1. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I'd love to take my payout right now in cash! Sooner or later they're going to have to raise the age you can collect to something like 80 years old. This year was the first year they paid out more then they took in. Somone down the line is going to get screwed out of their money.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Not true. The age limit may well be raised gradually by a year or two to reflect increases in the average healthy lifespan, but it's not likely to be increased to age 80. 70 perhaps, but not 80.

        1. profile image0
          Poppa Bluesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The life expectancy in 1933 was 61 for males 65 for females, now it's more like 72/78 and it keeps going higher!

          So when first enacted they didn't expect people to collect for more than 4 years, and now, you retire at 66 and live to 80, or you take early retirement at 62 and you collect for more than a decade, so yes the will have to raise it to at least 70, maybe 72. Either way we'll all be working longer and paying more and getting less.

    2. starme77 profile image76
      starme77posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Better than Bushes Idea when he wanted to put in in the stock market ,  wow look what woulda happened then - gone - in the blik of an eye

  2. profile image0
    cosetteposted 7 years ago

    i heard the government was going to issue I.O.U.s to people. is that not scandalous? if that is the case, why should we not want to opt out and rely on our own savings. they take SOOO much out of every paycheck!

    1. Michael Willis profile image80
      Michael Willisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      lol, I could see me giving an I.O.U. to a grocery store, Utility providers, car payments, etc....."This is from the SSN...you know they are good for it."

      lol

  3. flread45 profile image80
    flread45posted 7 years ago

    You better have a good job with a retirement account or put your money into a 401 K,as I am happy with my retirement and social security..

  4. profile image0
    cosetteposted 7 years ago

    i know, right? big_smile


    oh boy.

  5. Ralph Deeds profile image67
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    Opting out of Social Security would be quite foolish. No financial adviser would recommend doing that.

    1. TheGlassSpider profile image72
      TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It seems to me that eventually everyone's going to be forcibly "opted out." We can't sustain a system that's paying out more than it's taking in.

      Besides, even if a financial adviser wouldn't recommend it, why should anyone's money be somewhere they don't want it to be? If Joe Schmoe doesn't want to accept Social Security, why should he have to pay into it? Why doesn't he get to decide for himself what he wants to do with his money?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        The reason is simple. Social Security is a form of social insurance. Some, who die before retirement without dependents will collect nothing. Others who die with a spouse and/or a minor child will have the satisfaction of knowing that their spouse and children will receive a financial benefit. If you are permanently disabled for any reason at work or off the job you are entitled to a social security disability benefit. Like medical insurance, Social Security benefits depend on universal participation. The system wouldn't work if only the sick and disabled participated. The principle is the same as for term life insurance. Everyone pays the same premium based on their age. Some drop dead the day after making their first payment and the policy pays the face amount of the policy to their beneficiaries. Others live to age 90 in which case life insurance was a poor "investment." Term life insurance is not an investment, neither is Social Security.

        Social Security is a wonderful bargain for participants and for the country.

        1. TheGlassSpider profile image72
          TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Well, perhaps we can agree to disagree, Ralph. Having been privy to the way those miraculous SSI claims for disability work (my mom died waiting on hers...over a year later, we're STILL waiting to receive benefits she paid for for her entire life, shortened as it was) I can honestly tell you I am not impressed, nor am I convinced that people need to be forced to buy into "social insurance." I thought this was a capitalist country??

          ETA: Did I forget to mention that she left behind a minor son...yeah, I really appreciated all that financial help when I inherited a child.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I could be wrong, but I think your mother's minor son should have been entitled to benefits until age 21?

            I have heard that getting SS disability benefits approved takes longer than it should. Nevertheless, many people receive the benefits after becoming disabled at an early age.

            1. TheGlassSpider profile image72
              TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, indeed he SHOULD be, but in the meantime, I'm going bankrupt feeding and clothing him and by all accounts getting those benefits even STARTED will take another three years...by which time, he'll be 21.

              Ralph...let me ask you something...You sound all informed with facts and figures, but have you ever worked as a social worker? Have you ever seen the reality of Social Security and Disability? Have you worked/been with people who've lived in poverty their whole lives, or for generations? Even if they get benefits, they're benefits based on impoverished earnings, and the common person is made to feel like a common criminal when s/he is forced to try to draw on the benefits they're ENTITLED to. C'mon down to WV and I'll show you how Social Security has blessed many of the people who live here, okay?

              What's supposed to happen and what DOES happen are two different things.

        2. profile image0
          LegendaryHeroposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Social security is an unsustainable pyramid scheme.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Where did you get this completely erroneous notion?

            1. profile image0
              LegendaryHeroposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              It is a pyramid scheme, it requires a larger generation to support the previous generation. That can't last forever.

  6. Shadesbreath profile image85
    Shadesbreathposted 7 years ago

    I admit that it makes me amazingly bitter to think that I have been paying into it for thirty years already and in 25 or so years when I go to retire, I will get dick.  Gonna "just miss it" just like I "just missed" the male "paternity leave" that I get taxed for and will be taxed for over the rest of my adult working life but never got to have for myself.  F-ing pisses me off.  I'm getting raped and not even going to get to benefit of the socialism that is raping me.

    They take it, so I don't get my money for capitalistic ventures, and I don't get to enjoy socialism's benefits either.  I just don't get my money.  F-ing great system.  I hope they fix it before I retire or I'm going to be a grumpy old man of enormous proportions.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You will get whatever you are entitled to based on your earnings and FICA payments. I'm retired and fortunate to get SS benefits, a defined benefit pension, and a good return on my IRA (converted from a 401k). With these three sources of income I'm able to maintain the standard of living I had before I retired. SS, defined benefit pensions and personal savings and investment were known as the three-legged retirment stool. In recent years pensions are disappearing and only a two legged stool remains for most people.

  7. h.a.borcich profile image60
    h.a.borcichposted 7 years ago

    When I was younger and a single mom trying to make ends meet, the social security bite on my paycheck seemed huge. After 20+ years of paying in, I needed the benefits as I can no longer work due to an illness. I had to fight hard for the benefit. It struck me as forced to pay in, beg to have my claim honored, and now I fear it being bankrupt.
    I can't say the system is good, but I don't have a clue what would be better. Holly

  8. Norah Casey profile image68
    Norah Caseyposted 7 years ago

    I don't mind paying into the social security system. My grandmother lived off of its benefits for many years after her retirement account disappeared in the 1980s recession. I don't expect there to be any social security benefits for me to collect when my time to retire comes around. Frankly, I'd rather opt out of putting my federal income tax towards the defense budget, but thats for another thread. smile

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Your belief that there will be no benefits when you retire is unfounded. You are a victim of anti-Social Security propaganda. Both political parties support Social Security and will make sure that your benefits are paid.

  9. profile image0
    LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago

    I wish I could, I would just rather handle things myself.

    Here's something interesting I found:
    Critics of Social Security claim that it gives a low rate of return, compared to what is obtained through private retirement accounts. For example, critics point out that under the Social Security laws as they existed at that time, several thousand employees of Galveston County, Texas were allowed to opt out of the Social Security program in the early 1980s, and have their money placed in a private retirement plan instead. While employees who earned $50,000 per year would have collected $1,302 per month in Social Security benefits, the private plan paid them $6,843 per month. While employees who earned $20,000 per year would have collected $775 per month in Social Security benefits, the private plan paid them $2,740 per month, at interest rates prevailing in 1996.While some advocates of privatization of Social Security point to the Galveston pension plan as a model for Social Security reform, critics point to a GAO report to the House Ways and Means Committee, which indicates that, for low and middle income employees, particularly those with shorter work histories, the outcome may be less favorable.

  10. MikeNV profile image81
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    Personally I'd like to opt out of Income Taxes.

    Social Security is socialized welfare.  But those who have paid in want to get something out of it.  Those who have never paid in would be much better off self investing.  The problem is that people do not have the discipline to take the money and invest it.  So what would happen is they would grow old and have nothing then create additional problems on society.

    So it's both a good program and a bad program.  It's a glass half full half empty thing.  It all depends on your perspective.

  11. Maddie Ruud profile image80
    Maddie Ruudposted 7 years ago

    If you let people opt out, a bunch of young folks without a clear picture of long-term consequences would do so... and then get to retirement age and be sick and poor, and throw themselves on the government (or the mercy of friends and family) anyway.  It's clear that the average American doesn't have a head for money, with the amount of personal debt people are carrying these days.

    1. profile image0
      LegendaryHeroposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What about those with a head for money, should they be forced to deal with lower payments then they could get if they handled their own money?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Requiring universal participation is nececessary for Social Security to work as I explained above and which you didn't bother reading.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image67
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        You are free to use your "head for money" to save and invest after you have paid your Social Security tax. Social Security should not be judged as an investment but rather a social insurance program that

        --provides a minimum of financial security for participants who become permanently disabled at work or by illness or accident off the job and are unable to work.

        --provides a minimum of financial security for minor children upon the death of a parent

        --provides a level of income sufficient to avoid starvation or extreme poverty in retirement, a bargain for those fortunate to live long beyond retirement, less so for those who drop dead shortly after retiring.

        Social Security is considered by nearly everyone but hard core libertarians the most successful of the programs introduced during Roosevelt's administration. Both parties support Social Security and are likely to continue to do so. George Bush made a half-hearted attempt to privatize Social Security which, fortunately, got nowhere.

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          This line is B.S.!

          The Economic requirements for living life and those who have to live on just SS are screwed and are unable to live because of other costs.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Well, maybe they should have saved up a bit while they were working? Are you saying that SS should provide higher benefits comparable, for example, to the minimum wage? That was never the intention of the program. One advantage of SS over private pensions is that SS benefits are adjusted for increases in the Consumer Price Index (Some say over-adjusted).

    2. TheGlassSpider profile image72
      TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I don't disagree with your assessment, but I can't help but wonder if this is not simply the result of education that is NOT based in the real world.

      I can't tell you how much of a shock it was to get out of college and realize I had been taught ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about finances in the real world. I mean, sure, I could balance a check book, but where were Taxes 101, Buying Property: Pros and Cons, and Retirement Planning Basics in school when I needed them? And when learning about them could have helped me set up a very long-term retirement plan. In my opinion, our country would be better served by educating people about these things and then empowering them to make the right choices for them.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image67
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You got it right, Maddie. There has been a tremendous amount of misinformation and disinformation about Social Security.

    4. mod2vint profile image63
      mod2vintposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      And this has been known for quite some time.


      "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

      1. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Except that this quote - which goes round and round the internet - has no origin. There is no document or speech or place with witnesses where you can verify Wilson ever said it. File under fiction.

        1. TheGlassSpider profile image72
          TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Then what's this? (Granted he HAS been MISquoted, but only slightly)

          Senate Doc. 23, 76th Congress, 1st Session, page 100 http://www.archive.org/stream/NationalE … 0/mode/2up

          “A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men... We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”

  12. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    And just to let everyone know....you do have an option on whether or not you participate in the Social Security.

    Unfortunately, the options are not likely to be enjoyed or seen as fair or seen as realistic. However, it's the truth of the matter.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Please explain how someone can avoid paying Social Security tax other than by not having any earned income. It's true that people who are living on dividends or capital gains from inherited wealth don't pay SS tax. My understanding is that wages and other earned income is subject to the tax.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Well, if you don't know...then you're not as smart as you think you are. Maybe it would be wise for you to check into things more carefully.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          You're the one who made the assertion. Seems to me you should be willing to explain. You're the one who is spreading misinformation as usual.

          Social Security Tax

          http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10003.html

          1. Cagsil profile image60
            Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Well, what do you think the damn answer is Ralph? roll

            Need to explain everything is absurd. It should be obvious. But, since you apparently refuse to think first and question instead...

            Then, I guess, I'll tell you.

            Renounce your citizenship to America. Plain and Simple!

            Don't be a citizen of the Country, however, doing so has a lot more consequences to it, but it is an option, as I stated.

            I also said- it might not be an option that would be liked or thought to be fair. wink

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
              Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Are you saying that the wages of non-citizens working in this country are not subject to Social Security taxes? That's news to me. The U.S. has treaties with a number of other countries which deal with American ex-patriots working in other countries and with ex-patriots from other countries working in the United States. Whether an American who renounces his U.S. citizenship and becomes a citizen of another country but continues to work in this country is required to pay Social Security tax might depend on the terms of the social security treaty between the U.S. and the former U.S. citizen's new country. You may know more about this than I do. Nevertheless, this situation has little to do with the topic of this thread,i.e., whether someone would or should opt out of Social Security if they were able to do so. That was the question I addressed which you rudely characterized as "b.s." You are the one who spreads b.s. across these forums.

              1. Cagsil profile image60
                Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Man forget. You just love to argue and make things appear more complicated than are really. But, you have nice day now. smile

              2. pylos26 profile image79
                pylos26posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Cagsil…who in the hell wants to renounce their citizenship? As much as I admire your intelligence and wit, I must say that you are out of line here. Ralph deeds has not made anything complicated…he simply informed you of how the ss sytem works…and did a darn good job of it.

  13. Doug Hughes profile image59
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    When the Titanic went down, 60% of the first class passengrs survived - compared with 24% of the 3rd class passangers.

    In this country as far as health care and retirement is concerned, the '1st class' passengers are well protected. And they will do even better if they don't have to pay into Social Security and Medicare which they don't need. So when I hear people suggesting we do away with lifeboats (for the 3rd class passengers) of the USS America... I am inclined to say - no

    or 'Hell - No'..

    or something unprintable - NO!!!!!

  14. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    And, I didn't say anything about the non-citizens working anywhere. If I had, then the argument would have be moot now, would it?

    There isn't any B.S. in my statement and if you see that it was, then you've obviously misunderstood. However, don't worry. I'm sure you'll play it off as my misunderstanding, so you can make yourself look better.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Boy, you really got me there. It hadn't occurred to me that someone could opt out of Social Security by renouncing his citizenship and moving to another country or not earning any wages in the United States. Wow, why didn't that occur to me? My bad.

 
working