SOCIAL SECURITY: The Libertarian Way

Who wants to retire as a millionaire?

You would have the opportunity to do so- if you were ALLOWED to opt out of the Social security system, and invest your money in a private retirement account.

Now, you don't have that choice.

By law, the government collects Social Security taxes-12.4% from every employee and employer combined and pours it into a system that is headed for ECONOMIC COLLAPSE.

Even the social security board of trustees admits this.


According to the board, the social security system will start running a deficit by 2016.

By 2032, the so called social security trust will be depleted and the system will be insolvent.


Fortuneately there is a better way Instead of relying on a bankrupt government system, we could allow individual Americans to control their own retirement accounts. Under such a syste, average wage earners could retire in comfort and security, with more then $1 million in the bank..Sound to good to be true?

The Cato Institute crunched the numbers.

Over the past 70 years, wall street investments have returrned an average of 7% a year (after inflation). By contrast, Social Security pays an average family a palty 1.2% annual return. Over the years, thanks to compound interest, the difference between those two numbers adds up to staggering amounts of money!

For example/ a typical signle wage earner with income of 36,000 could accumulate 1.2 million in a stock invested pension fund by retirement, according to the Cato Institute.

That would pay an annual retirement income of $124,000.

Under Social security (notice the s is not capped) such a wage earner would get one fifth as much: $24,000 per year.

Other countries like Chile, Mexico, Britain, and Australia have already made the transition from failing s.s systems to secure individual retirement accounts.

Libertarians say it's time to follow their lead!

We will:

Move America toward a private, non-government retirement system.

It would not only solve the problem of sputtering Social Security system, but it would help create a nation of millionaires.

And, most importantly, it would mean you and your family would no longer have to depend on politicians' (empty) promises for a secure retirement.





[edit on 2-9-2004 by TrueLies]

True Lies~~
I've often thought that was a good idea. It would do all that you say AND it would keep the government from "borrowing" from SS money.

My only concern, what about all those in their 30s, 40s and 50s---what would happen to them. Surely it's too late to privatize their accounts? I'm way too close to SS to want to start a new retirement plan.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I'm way too close to SS to want to start a new retirement plan.

Surely it isn't too late, and even though your close to a retirement plan via s.s what makes you so sure you'll see any of that money in the near future?

Our parents and grandparents were right about not trusting anybody but yourself with your own money, invest it, secure it, live off your interest it can be done, there are many routes to go here...

social security isn't secure as we've been told by the very people that run the show... I wouldn't put all my eggs into one basket... Try it.. But it doesn't look to good...

I do indeed like the idea. In the past some Federal employees could have thier SS go into a different account instead of the SS trust fund. They would not recieve SS credit on those years. My mother was one of those people. The 10 Years she contributed to that system was worth much more that the social security she would have gotten from her other employment periods.

I do agree with DTOM that the question of the 40-60 group would need a detailed plan or prorating of the benifits. The earlier we impliment this the quicker we could change over.

Good Call.

President Bush has proposed to privatise and allow investment options for some of your SS benifits. However, i agreee the plan you outlined would be of greater benifit. What do our Democrat counterparts think of this?

In 1936, the federal government published an informational pamphlet on Social Security. With regards to benefits, it stated:



"The checks will come to you as a right."

[166]



* Three years later, Congress and President Franklin D. Roosevelt eliminated two benefits from the Social Security program.[167]



* The original Social Security Act of 1935 states:



"The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress."

[168]



* In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right. [169]



* The Social Security Administration's web site states:



"There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense� Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law."



"Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn�"

The word "savings" or "save" does not appear in the Social Security Act of 1935. The word "benefit" appears 25 times.

George W. Bush has proposed to give individuals the option to place 16% of their Social Security taxes into a private account. [174]9Not good enough this is OUR money, making it illegal to put all of it in a private account is ridiculous)

As my husband says, "Treat social security like it doesn't even exist, you can't rely on government to handle your money honorably"

People who chose to do this, could decide to put their money into bank accounts, government bonds, CDs, or the stock market. Bush's plan proposes investment guidelines to prohibit people from making high risk investments. [175] [176]



* The Republican Party supports giving workers the option to place a portion of their Social Security taxes into a private account. [177]



* The Democratic Party is opposed to giving workers the option to place a portion of their Social Security taxes into a private account. [178]
www.socialsecurity.org...

This plan isn't just a libertarian idea, republicans have been talking about this for a while. Bush campaigned on this the first time around. He even brought this up again when I saw him this past Saturday at a campaign rally.

Democrats always, always oppose these kinds of ideas.

Originally posted by Bob88
This plan isn't just a libertarian idea, republicans have been talking about this for a while. Bush campaigned on this the first time around. He even brought this up again when I saw him this past Saturday at a campaign rally.

Democrats always, always oppose these kinds of ideas.

Well apparantly this is the deal with Bush

George W. Bush has proposed to give individuals the option to place 16% of their Social Security taxes into a private account. [174]

Sure he can bring it up at rallies, but it hasn't first time around why would it happen this time and on top of it he's only talking 16%...

You can't have it both ways... It's just not cool to do.. It's your money, you should have the choice where you want to put YOUR money...
Social security is anything but secure..

Alan Greenspan just made this comment at the symposium this weekend, he's admitted it's in danger... It was in the paper, i'll try and find a link..

But why continue to put YOUR money into something that is on the road to destruction... Doesn't make sense to me

For us older people the Libertarian plan would allow us to get our money back plus intrest for all these years I have crunched the numbers personaly but I am sure they would amount to at LEAST as much as I would receive the other way and the money could be invested to earn MORE money.

I would need to see the numbers but all in all it sounds better than what we have now.

Social Security Time Bomb, and the Candidates Aren't Talking

Defining an Ownership Society

The 6.2 Percent Solution:


The Trust Fund, the Surplus, and the Real Social Security Problem

Points for Republicans to Ponder

The Era of Big Government

To amend title II of the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue

www.socialsecurity.org...


Big government doesn't mean safer government, it doesn't mean secure government, and if definitely does not mean a safer securer life for everyday working people. These are great links, worth a read if you really care about your future...

President Bush briefly discussed one of the most important issues facing Americans: Social Security reform. Now that campaigning for the 2004 elections is under way, we'll probably hear a lot about why the Social Security system should be revamped to include individual accounts invested in stocks and bonds. Opponents of reform have already played their cards; they argue it's impossible to manage 140 million personal accounts, let alone cost-effectively. They're wrong and here's why.

Independant Accounts

At Level 1, a worker's employer sends payroll taxes to the U.S. Treasury. The employer tells Treasury how much of the total payment is from employees who have chosen the personal retirement account option. Treasury then transfers that portion to a private-sector custodian bank, which then invests the total amount in a money market fund which is always priced at one dollar, a standard industry convention.

Level 2,The following year, when the contribution is reconciled to the individual's name using the W-2 form, the fund's shares are distributed to each worker representing his contributions and interest credit. He then transfers his Level 1 assets to one of three balanced funds, each highly diversified and invested in thousands of securities.

One of the Level 2 balanced funds would be comprised of assets that approximate the portfolio construction of successful corporate defined benefit plans. Such plans usually have stocks and bonds in a 60-40 percent weight, respectively. This fund is the default portfolio, where one is invested if no choice is made.

The two other funds would have the same asset classes but with different weights. For younger workers, one fund with a higher concentration of stocks would be created, and another, more geared toward less-volatile bonds for those near retirement. Although workers could choose any of the three funds, the funds themselves are designed for differing ages.

After three years or so, when Level 2 has accumulated significant assets and economies of scale, each worker could elect to transfer assets from Level 2 to Level 3. This level would be more like the retail financial services environment. Although portfolio composition would be comparable to the funds in Level 2, there would be less-restrictive investment guidelines.

The institutions and providers at Level 3 may want to offer additional goods and services, such as retirement planning software, to attract assets from Level 2. Each worker could allocate his assets at will among Level 3 providers. This would ensure stiff competition as each provider strives to meet investors' needs. Costs would most likely be greater than at Level 2, but they would be incurred only if an individual chose to shift to Level 3.

Workers could also move some or all of their Level 3 assets back to Level 2, a platform with fewer features, but also lower costs. The competition across Level 3 providers, and between Levels 2 and 3 would ensure workers receive the greatest amount of goods and services at the lowest possible cost. While all these financial management decisions are taking place, new savings continue to be invested in Level 1 until reconciled to each individual's name. When and if a recordkeeping system is developed that tracks workers' savings as made, Level 1 could be disbanded.

Workers would receive an annual statement, have Internet and phone access to their accounts, and be able to make daily choices in Level 3 and annual changes in Level 2. They would receive professional asset management, custody of their assets, and state-of the-art recordkeeping of their accounts.

The cost of this system through Level 2 � including asset management, custody, recordkeeping, 175 million to 350 million phone calls a year to a customer service center and other costs, including postage � are estimated at about three-tenths of 1 percent (0.3 percent) of accumulated assets, significantly less than most mutual fund costs.

The modernization of Social Security is not just a good idea � it is a necessity. Those seeking political office this year will have to respond to voters' questions about how they would reform Social Security. Fortunately for them, much of the work has already been done.

This article originally appeared in the Washington Times on January 26, 2004.

Social Security reform plans: www.socialsecurity.org...:social_security_reform_plans

======================================
You will also find the dems perspective of Social Security there

This is an atrocious situations, not to mention "socialist"

Both these parties are blantantly obvious in how they want to control your funds... How have these two parties helped spread financial prosperity across the board??

This is like organized crime, you work, they take, they may give back IF things work out... Not to mention their lack of educated guesses are anything but educated guesses and they have been debunked in these point by point perspectives..

Look at the numbers, look at the savings, look at how much lack of control they really have..