Jeb Bush: Next president should privatize Social Security

[Johnboy60]

WASHINGTON – Jeb Bush thinks the next president will need to privatize Social Security, he said at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday – acknowledging that his brother attempted to do so and failed. It’s a position sure to be attacked by both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush has previously said he would support raising the retirement age to get Social Security benefits, a common position among Republicans. And he backed a partial privatization that House Republicans have proposed that would allow people to choose private accounts.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jeb-bush-next-president-should-privatize-social-121711767951.html

 

[dgiharris]

Sometimes I feel as if I'm in the Twilight Zone...

Was I the only person who recently lived through the whole Housing Market Crisis of 2008?

Look, I love Capitalism, I think it aligns best with human nature. However, the Private Industry is not the silver bullet that can fix all of our ailments.

Privatizing SS (Social Security) sounds like a great idea on paper, but what happens when all those private firms housing millions of American SS accounts goes belly up like they would have in 2008? What happens then? The Government will have to bail them out.

Similarly, the so-called Private Industry is nothing more than an Aristocracy playing fast and loose with our money. Again, the whole Housing Market crisis is proof of Corporate Greed run amuck.

Not only did they nearly wreck the Economy with their greed, but to add insult to injury,. when the Government had to bail them out, they took a significant percentage of that bailout money to ensure their profitability and THEN on top of that they paid themselves their bonuses...

Why is it we as a nation have the memory span of Goldfish?

Sure, on paper, privatizing SS sounds great. But when you actually look at the Foxes guarding the hen houses (like the housing market crisis), they are the last person I want to trust SS with.

 

[Vylo]

Funny thing is, he is right. We should make the accounts 401k style (if not simply 401ks themselves). Your default fund is "social security" Which has low return, but security.

 

[jsimms615]

I wonder what makes him think he would have greater success than his brother

 

[keith99]

Funny thing is, he is right. We should make the accounts 401k style (if not simply 401ks themselves). Your default fund is "social security" Which has low return, but security.

Only if one views Social Security as retirement and nothing more. Unfortunately it is also entangled with disability insurance and wealth redistribution. And if a privatized portion fails one way or another there will be a safety net, and we all end up paying for that.

That said I see no reason to not allow partial privatization, allow a certain percentage or everything beyond a certain minimum (e.g. enough to insure no bailout needed, a poor but non-deadly retirement) to be privately managed with some restrictions similar to 401K plans. Biggest difference between that portion and a 401K would be the contributions are still mandatory and there is no withdrawal allowed until retirement age period. (Only exception I can see is impending death).

 

[katherine2001]

He does realize that every penny that a person has paid into Social Security would have to be refunded to them correct? Is the GOP willing to do that? If they are not, then they'd better not think of privatizing it. I have had a lot of money taking out in SS tax since I started working in 1981, and I'd better get every penny of it paid back to me if SS is privatized.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The issue with trying to do that is inflation. If you were building a system from the ground up, you might be able to architect something a little more private (similar to a 401k model), however, the system was designed with the inflationary model in mind, thus the reason it was designed to allow for the current labor force to pay for the current retirees.

Unless someone is really savvy with investing and can target the right investments that will give them a return that exceeds the current rate of inflation, they'll end up being behind the curve come retirement time...because if you just took that money and put it in a basic savings account, the interest you earn wouldn't offset the inflationary devaluation of the money you have in there.

While this is in no way an endorsement of our current SS model (I personally don't like it)...just simply saying that trying to convert at this point in the game could have some disastrous effects.

To put it in a little perspective...

If you took $500 today and put it in a basic savings account, in 40 years from now, you'll be sitting on ~$1,100 dollars based on current interest rates.

If the next 40 years are anything like the last 40 years in terms of inflation rates, that $1,100 in 2055 will give you $248.86 in equivalent 2015 buying power. (IE: you just lost half your buying power)

In order to ensure that your money would hold it's value on par with inflation, you'd need to have your money in investments that would consistently give you 4%+ return rates.

 

[Viren]

In a time of grotesque income inequality Republicans want to raise the retirement age, privatize social security and cut social security by delinking it with cpi. All this while trying to eliminate the estate tax.

 

[CGL1023]

WASHINGTON – Jeb Bush thinks the next president will need to privatize Social Security, he said at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday – acknowledging that his brother attempted to do so and failed. It’s a position sure to be attacked by both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush has previously said he would support raising the retirement age to get Social Security benefits, a common position among Republicans. And he backed a partial privatization that House Republicans have proposed that would allow people to choose private accounts.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jeb-bush-next-president-should-privatize-social-121711767951.html

The v b

WASHINGTON – Jeb Bush thinks the next president will need to privatize Social Security, he said at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday – acknowledging that his brother attempted to do so and failed. It’s a position sure to be attacked by both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush has previously said he would support raising the retirement age to get Social Security benefits, a common position among Republicans. And he backed a partial privatization that House Republicans have proposed that would allow people to choose private accounts.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jeb-bush-next-president-should-privatize-social-121711767951.html

Any new system would need a way to prevent looting, or at least have the government responsible for insuring it. People these days are too clever to pass up a large pool of money without someone trying to loot it; they will eventually succeed and probably without anyone knowing until much later. Recall of the financial meltdown in the waning days of Bush 43 and the multiplied billions looted over a matter of years. Government ineptitude has recently been displayed in the hacking of the OPM computers.

 

[dgiharris]

The v b


Any new system would need a way to prevent looting, or at least have the government responsible for insuring it. People these days are too clever to pass up a large pool of money without someone trying to loot it; they will eventually succeed and probably without anyone knowing until much later. Recall of the financial meltdown in the waning days of Bush 43 and the multiplied billions looted over a matter of years. Government ineptitude has recently been displayed in the hacking of the OPM computers.

Corporate ineptitude was recently displayed during that whole housing crisis bank bail out.

Another scary view into the mindset of Corporate leaders can be found watching this

I have had the opportunity to work with ubber rich corporate ivory tower types, and trust me, your money is not safer with them. They simply don't think in terms of your best interest, they think in terms of their best interest and a case of pathological entitlement because they believe the middle and lower classes are inferior.

again, the whole housing market crisis is a perfect example of why SS should never be privatized

watch this movie about the 2008 crisis. Granted this one is more dramatized, but it will help you understand what happened

 

[Albion]

He does realize that every penny that a person has paid into Social Security would have to be refunded to them correct?

No. But assuming that this were the thinking in this case, refunding (or giving back in the form of benefits) would probably be the least costly thing to do. That would. however, amount to abandoning SS right now, when the challenge is actually to avoid having it end.

What I'd like to see is a comparison of the ease or difficulty of the various proposals for extending the solvency of the funding--raising the retirement age, raising the tax rate, raising the amount of wages on which the tax is paid, etc.

Is the GOP willing to do that? If they are not, then they'd better not think of privatizing it. I have had a lot of money taking out in SS tax since I started working in 1981, and I'd better get every penny of it paid back to me if SS is privatized.

Truth be told, that's not as reasonable as you think. All those years you were insured for some of what SS offers. Not the monthly retirement package, of course, but several others kinds of benefits. So there is no reason to assume that all your premiums should be repaid, no matter what the developments in the future. This isn't an annuity.

 

[Albion]

In a time of grotesque income inequality Republicans want to raise the retirement age, privatize social security and cut social security by delinking it with cpi. All this while trying to eliminate the estate tax.

You're quite confused. Despite the hijinks that go on in Washington, we do not just switch money earmarked for one item in the budget or set by law into another account as desired like you might do with a household budget.

 

[Viren]

You're quite confused. Despite the hijinks that go on in Washington, we do not just switch money earmarked for one item in the budget or set by law into another account as desired like you might do with a household budget.

I never suggested such.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Corporate ineptitude was recently displayed during that whole housing crisis bank bail out.

Another scary view into the mindset of Corporate leaders can be found watching this

I have had the opportunity to work with ubber rich corporate ivory tower types, and trust me, your money is not safer with them. They simply don't think in terms of your best interest, they think in terms of their best interest and a case of pathological entitlement because they believe the middle and lower classes are inferior.

again, the whole housing market crisis is a perfect example of why SS should never be privatized

watch this movie about the 2008 crisis. Granted this one is more dramatized, but it will help you understand what happened

Because white collar crimes are viewed as "harmless", even though they effect thousands, if not millions, of people. I call it the invisible theft. Since it isn't a guy walking away with your wallet in his hand, you don't see the crime, but you do feel it the rest of your life. We're still paying for these government bailouts, with nothing to show for it.

 

[Viren]

What I'd like to see is a comparison of the ease or difficulty of the various proposals for extending the solvency of the funding--raising the retirement age, raising the tax rate, raising the amount of wages on which the tax is paid, etc.

First, SS has enough money to keep it solvent for another 18 years. Second, a quarter of corporations don't pay any taxes. I think the priority should be on making sure they pay taxes instead of talking about cutting benefits.

 

[dgiharris]

First, SS has enough money to keep it solvent for another 18 years. Second, a quarter of corporations don't pay any taxes. I think the priority should be on making sure they pay taxes instead of talking about cutting benefits.

Blasphemy!!!!

Don't you know all the country's economic problems would be fixed overnight if corporations didn't have to pay taxes and if they weren't regulated.

Seriously, good Capitalism entails making sure the corporations and individuals who are in the top 5% keep as much money as possible. The more wealth we can concentrate and ensure fall within the purview of the top 5%, the better the economy will be.

Everyone knows that the very richest among us are really good at spending money and using any and all excess money to create jobs. I mean, it's not like they are going to take all that money and send it into cyberspace and stockmarket space and real estate and off shore accounts where it will rarely if ever translate into real jobs in America. That is crazy talk.

Just look at the bail outs. When the banks needed the $800B they used that money to make sure that Americans kept as many houses as possible. The banks were also really good at providing loans to businesses and individuals to spur the economy. The banks similarly denied themselves their bonuses and profits for the year because they are of good moral character and would never use bail out money for their own gains.

*Opps*

I'm sorry, I accidentally fell into a parallel universe that is the exact opposite of this universe and I got my universes confused. Happens all the time....

Basically take everything above and just reverse it

have a nice day....

 

[Albion]

First, SS has enough money to keep it solvent for another 18 years. Second, a quarter of corporations don't pay any taxes. I think the priority should be on making sure they pay taxes instead of talking about cutting benefits.

That would require replacing Social Security with some other government insurance or welfare system. SS is legal only because it is a tax on employment. What you suggest would be to allocate some general revenues to the SS system in order to pay benefits, completely disconnecting beneficiaries from contributions (premiums) paid in, as well as ending the principle of contributions being a tax on employment.

 

[Armoured]

WASHINGTON – Jeb Bush thinks the next president will need to privatize Social Security, he said at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Tuesday – acknowledging that his brother attempted to do so and failed. It’s a position sure to be attacked by both Republicans and Democrats.

Bush has previously said he would support raising the retirement age to get Social Security benefits, a common position among Republicans. And he backed a partial privatization that House Republicans have proposed that would allow people to choose private accounts.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jeb-bush-next-president-should-privatize-social-121711767951.html

I can't even begin to imagine how that's supposed to work. Isn't the idea of privatising anything to make it profit based?

 

[Albion]

I can't even begin to imagine how that's supposed to work. Isn't the idea of privatising anything to make it profit based?

As I recall, George W. Bush proposed privatizing 2% of one's contributions. Predictably, the Democrats turned that into privatizing the whole of Social Security.

What Jeb Bush has to say needs to be looked at with more care. At the moment I don't know just what his proposal is, but I see that he seemed to connect it to his brother's idea.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Because white collar crimes are viewed as "harmless", even though they effect thousands, if not millions, of people. I call it the invisible theft. Since it isn't a guy walking away with your wallet in his hand, you don't see the crime, but you do feel it the rest of your life. We're still paying for these government bailouts, with nothing to show for it.

Correct, the government is at fault for acting incorrectly in bailing out corporations that should be allowed to reap the reward for their failures rather than being rewarded for their failures. No government bailouts, no protracted economic stagnation, no incompetent corporations extending their incompetence and stifling by their very existence and the assistance of a enabling and complicit government, newer more competent businesses from entering the market and prospering and growing the economy. It is much better to endure a short lived depression than decades of stagnation. If one is concerned with income inequality , and we all should be as a large a gap of income inequality leads to disincentivization of the work force. There is no quicker fix for income inequality than a depression. The poor remain poor but the people that caused the depression by being incompetent in all but their short term plans to milk the system join them in poverty where they deserve, by their irresponsible actions, to be. Subsequently, the economy reboots allowing those with more competence and less greed to prosper. Additionally, the government is capable of handling the increased social spending for a short period of time that accompanies a normal depression but the extended expenditures that have accompanied stagnation being drawn out over a decade a or more becomes unsustainable as there is no new growth in economic vitality such as occurs after a short depression to replenish the government's coffers. Inevitably staving off a depression by artificially propping up old and outdated corporations and financial institutions will only lead to an even greater economic catastrophe when the government can no longer continue to pretend it is economically solvent itself.