What if this were the retirement debate? What would be the rational position?

[Oregone]

Imagine a world without Social Security, where retired workers faced a lonely terrain ahead of them without the means to truly retire and be financially independent in their old age (there was a time like this). How many of them would starve? How many would lose their homes, their property, and their way of life? How many would simply never retire? The situation would be dire, in a different manner than the current health care situation, but dire nonetheless.

So, can you put yourself in such a scenario, and imagine what your mindset would be? Would you repeatedly say, "Don't let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good". Would you lend your support to a solution, any solution, even if it was in itself a complete renunciation to socialism, just so your party can have a win? Just imagine the scenario...

In a "Social Security"-Free world, what if the leading proposal was to mandate that everyone has an open retirement account (401K or whatever) with private banks or investment firms (with employers given incentives to sponsor them & contribute). For some poorer people, the government would use tax money to subsidize them (and thereby, the providing companies like Goldman Sachs). How would you feel about that "solution" to cover everyone and help people save up? How do you feel recently about your 401K plan? Is this the best way to ensure everyone has retirement? Is it even a good way?

What if they spiced it up by offering a public retirement plan open to few, which entire employers could eventually pick for their employees? Though, what if it was incredibly low yield and didn't compete, how many would really choose it? 1.5% maybe? Is that enough to make this model of mostly private subsidized & mandated retirement worth it?

"Let's just pass something to build on, and we will fix it later". "All-or-nothing Democrats just want their pony". "These things take time, and this is the first step".

Would those be your thoughts about an attempt to mandate private retirement and subsidize Wallstreet? Yes, more people would be taken care of, but at what cost? What direction would the country ultimately be moving in?

What if this were the unemployment insurance debate? What if this were the bank deposit insurance debate? Is this sane public policy?

We never have to think about that, because once there was a progressive Democratic Party that fought for its people, and there was a different national mindset that aided it. But if you cast your lot on the side of subsidized and mandated, mostly private services over efficient socialized government service, would the traditional Democratic party of FDR and Truman have laughed you out of the room, barring the door behind you?

But the remnants of such a party are long gone. All that is resoundingly clear is the derision cast at the dissenters; the constant bravado and group-think that quashes all other noise in the room in an attempt to secure a pyrrhic victory.

At the end of the day, its all water under the bridge at this point though. You will all get the policy you have either cheer leaded for or attempted to shame. Though, it may help to consider this policy, if you carried water for it, in a historical perspective of left vs right, Democrat vs Republican, and people vs the corporations, because there will be future battles to be waged. Do you stand by the goals of the traditional Democratic Party that has accomplished so much good for the country as a whole by not beginning the debate with a compromisable compromised position, or do you stand for policies that, at their heart, are a complete renunciation of socialism?

Where would you have been if this was the approach on all these other popular issues (that resulted in a socialistic approach)? Where were you this time around? Where will you be in the future? Its worth asking, one would think.

[Ikonoklast]

1. SS was never designed to replace savings and pensions.

To this day, it is a program to augment, not replace personal retirement savings or pensions.

If you think living on SS alone will keep a person in their own home and independent in their old age, you are mistaken.

Minimum SS benefits alone can barely keep a person fed. It offers only a very basic level of financial support for its recipients.

Flawed premise.

If I had to retire right now, this minute, with only SS benefits, I would lose my home.



And with the votes in Congress being as close as they were, how on Earth do would you think a more aggressive health care bill would have ever even got out of committee?

Real world problems, real world choices, real world solutions.

[Oregone]

3. I said imagine a pre-SS world

There exists a problem in that world. What would your solution be to address it? A socialized government service, or mandate private market activity & subsidize it? What is the traditional Democratic approach?

Im using historical examples to invoke an overall idealogical debate, rather than attempting to analyze the nuances of each particular existing policy. From a blank slate state, what would your approach be? What would be even consider sane? What is actually "liberal"? What is actually "corporatist"?

[napi21]

4. We live on SS and we're doing just fine. We didn't constantly buy

new & bigger houses, and we paid ours off over 10 years before my husband retired. We both worked for a LONG TIME, and although I had to retire for health reasons about 15 years ago, I started collecting SS on my own account last year, and my husband worked until he was 66 so I would have ins. until I was eligible for Medicare. We both have a 401K but together they're not worth that much, especially since this last market crash! We don't spend money foolishly, vut do go out to eat once in a while, buy pretty much whatever food we want and still manage to save a little money from SS each month.

I believe the trick is to plan for retirement. Make sure you paid your house off before then. Make sure you pay your car off before retirement.

[Ikonoklast]

6. Yes, the 'trick' is to plan for retirement.

Unfortunately, your personal circumstances cannot be transposed onto others. Two people contributing toward one household can make it vastly easier.

Tell me, how can one 'make sure' they have everything paid off before retiring, when they are downsized, made redundant, fired, whatever you want to call it, in their fifties and no one will hire them for anything other than flipping burgers, and they have to delve into savings just to pay bills?

What about a guy like me, economically devastated by a divorce, sole custody of three kids, and along with all the expenses along with raising those kids, not a dime's worth of monetary support from the ex?

Every single penny I made was spent trying to keep food on the table and a roof over our heads, and paying off the debts I was saddled with by my ex-wife, while working one full-time and two part-time jobs.

I was not able to put much away for my own future use. I spent the better part of ten years just keeping the wolf from the door, and now that they are older, I am just now starting to save whatever I can for retirement again.

[Abq_Sarah]

14. That's pretty much what my mom did

She lived on the cheap to pay her mortgage off early and made sure she owned her car before she considered retirement.

[madfloridian]

5. Yes, it can keep people in their homes and independent. What you said is not true.

It is a program that has been a lifesaver to seniors.

If our Democrats continue to try to privatize it in any way....it will be the end of the conversation for many who have been supportive.

[Ikonoklast]

8. Along with what other monetary resources?

I know very few people that can survive on just SS benefits alone.

It was never designed to be a primary source of income for retirees.

[Oregone]

9. You know, this thread really isn't meant to be a retirement debate

Yes, funny that, being the nature of the title. Social Security is but a mere example of a socialized service, and I contrasted it with a mandated & subsidized private "solution" that many would probably oppose (and the traditional Democratic Party probably would not have lined up behind it). That was the point, so actually delving deeply into the specific example doesn't really answer the overall idealogical question that I guess I could have poised more directly.

[Ikonoklast]

11. I understand, but I guess the point is

that people also use retirement plans managed by private companies that make a profit off them to augment the 'public option' of SS.

No that you are mandated to do so, but a prudent person certainly would.

[Oregone]

12. And thats a point from an entirely different context where SS already exists.

But SS has eased the pain and suffering of many, as well as made retirement easier for many Americans. Would an alternative mandated & subsidized private solution done this just as well, as efficiently? What would you have been in favor of back in the 30s? What problems would it have created (fraud, market bubbles, crashes leaving people without savings completely)?

I am not here claiming this socialized service is a panacea. I'm claiming the alternative of mandated & subsidized private investment may of caused more problems and not have served people as well. From an idealogical perspective, this wouldn't be my first or last route that I would advocate in a variety of sectors (health insurance included).

[havocmom]

13. Yep. If it were mandated that we buy investments, we would howl

I firmly believe part of the reason for insurance mandate is it basically does what the attempt to privatize Social Security would have done: Force workers to pay Wall Street. The insurance mandate is a side door payroll tax levied by private corporations, for corporations, enforced by government.

We howled re privatizing Social Security, so Wall Street and their elected tools did an end run that results in pretty much the same thing: force everyone to pay Wall Street (cuz what the insurance companies do with most of the premiums we pay is play the market)

I even posted an OP to that effect earlier today. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?

[madfloridian]

16. Then we know different kinds of people.

It was a godsend to the elderly and their families coming out of that deep depression.

Yes, many do live on that alone, people who were unable to make other investments. There are people like that you know.

My grandparents were among the first on Social Security, and coming out of the big recession....it was all they had.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Today's Democratic Congress would gut Social Security and Medicare

keeping only the name.

[TomCADem]

7. Increase SS Taxes and Push Out Retirement Age - Viola' Solvency!

Also, do it sooner, rather than later or the change will need to be more severe.

Oh, I would also consider changes to the 401(k), which most middle class families cannot rely on. The 401(k) originally was created for rich executives, but somehow became a cure-all.

[napi21]

10. I don't agree with pushing out the retirement age. It's NOT

mandatory that you retire at a certain age, but many, many people aren't physically able to work much beyond the current 65-67. The other thing retirment does is open up jobs for younger people.

As far as increasing the SS tax, you wouldn't even need to do that. Just take the cap off and make it payable on ALL WAGES. I never thought it was fair that the higher income earners didn't have to pay SS once their pay reached a certain level.

[Abq_Sarah]

15. Removing the cap

Would be my preferred method. Forcing people to work until age 70 would cause more blue collar workers to apply for disability and that isn't going to "fix" anything. Place a cap on benefits received so the very wealthy don't end up getting benefits they don't need and tax all income.