| Should saving for retirement be made compulsory? |
|
|
|
|
|
financechoices
Senior Member
Cash: $ 53.79
Posts: 253
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Should saving for retirement be made compulsory? |
 |
|
People could be forced to save for their retirement, Work and Pensions Secretary David Blunkett has hinted.
Official reports suggest that more than 12 million people are not saving enough for their old age.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has previously warned that there would be "real difficulties" introducing compulsory savings, but Mr Blunkett said merely giving people information "is not enough".
Full story
This whole idea makes me feel uneasy but I can understand that more and more people are set to live on into retirement age and many it seems aren't saving up for their retirement.
What do you guys think?
UK Finance Forum | Loans | Credit Cards
|
Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:45 am |
|
|
jlee1224
Full Member
Cash: $ 12.65
Posts: 63
Joined: 26 May 2005
Location: Baltimore
|
It would be great if everyone saved for retirement, if they were intelligent in their financial decisions, patient in their investments, and persistent in saving.
But you can't force people to do these things. Would you just take 5% from everyone's paycheck and put it into a national "pension"? People would riot if the government forced this (see social security).
Everyone knows that saving for retirement is good. But people will also buy that car that they didn't need, that plasma tv that was important for the game, that cruise that just needed to be taken.
|
|
Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:48 pm |
|
|
financechoices
Senior Member
Cash: $ 53.79
Posts: 253
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
So lets say Bill Bloggs doesn't save for his retirement and when he gets to retirement age has no money. What would you do then? Would he suffer for his mistakes or would there be a state 'back up' system in place?
UK Finance Forum | Loans | Credit Cards
|
|
Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:50 pm |
|
|
zZigzZag
Member
Cash: $ 3.65
Posts: 17
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
|
Yes, Bill Bloggs should suffer for his mistakes and live the best he can on his 'safety net' SS benefits. Sounds harsh, but we all have choices to make--new car every year or a more comfortable old age. I don't feel much obligation to help Bill out beyond the minimum survival level.
|
|
Sun Jul 17, 2005 7:55 pm |
|
|
xboxundone
Senior Member
Cash: $ 67.83
Posts: 796
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
|
Personnally I think SS sucks i woudl much rather have my money and invest it for retirement how i see fit. But for the average joe some would rather the government do IT..
I woudl be in favor of an opt of sign up thing meaning you sign saying you would pay SS but also stating you wont receive any. I would be game with that.
I give the government enough control of my money with taxes... I would like to have evne more control over my retirement just my 2 cents
|
|
Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:10 pm |
|
|
financechoices
Senior Member
Cash: $ 53.79
Posts: 253
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Just playing devils advocate here but I doubt you'd pay less taxes even if you opted out of a state pension as you'd have to pay for those that couldn't pay for themselves.
UK Finance Forum | Loans | Credit Cards
|
|
Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:18 pm |
|
|
SkyPilot
Senior Member
Cash: $ 100.11
Posts: 492
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
Simply put, if SS tax revenues had been put in bonds in individual accounts, the bond return rate in most cases would outperform SS. Even if SS had been invested in securities as a general fund, it would have gained enough to provide basic benefits in perpetuity. Sadly, it was not.
So, in that we have compulsary contributions anyway, let us at least have an option of which compulsary scheme we would like to be involved in.
I am in favor of compulsary retirement savings, and even a basic contribution benefit (unearned retirement tax credit) for those who's income is inadequate to make a contribution.
This would go quite a distance in assuring a perpetual funding scheme for a basic retirement for all. (of course, then we may want to discuss how to handle the undocumented workers, etc, so on and so forth...)
|
|
Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:08 pm |
|
|
hellobob
Member
Cash: $ 2.90
Posts: 11
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
|
| ss problems |
|
|
ok, heres my 2 cent RANT
I know there are a million problems with social security, but these are the ones that tic me off the most.
if you stuck the money under your matress , at least you would know where it was.... there is no lockbox, never was one. the money comes in and they pay it out. or spend it on other things.
at the age of 45 I already know there will be little or nothing in SS for me. even though my personal deductions have added up to over 44k and 88k with the employer match. it's not that there will be no SS. its that they have a rule on the books called a WINDFALL exclusion, where in IF you are smart enough or lucky enough to have worked your way into a position where you have a Government pension, IE military and ALL federal and state workers of any kind. then they consider this pension ( that you have worked a minimum of 20 years to obtain) as a WINDFALL, which to me wrongly means it fell in your lap. they then back off your SS benifits by about 60% or more the amount of your pension. which brings me back to" it would have been beter for me to put in in a matress."
Could you imagine any investment house checking to see if you were smart enough to have gotten multiple sources of income befor they would let you tap you investment.
just give me back my actual out of paycheck conrtibutions and I'll call it even.
besides I don't want my kids being taxed to death to support a whole generation of us baby boomers , who were too busy spending their whole lifes to save for their own retirement.
as I said I'm 45, Let's make a new rule and draw the line at 46...
Anybody younger than 46 gets NO SS. if you don't save now you wont have it later.
If you wan't to tax me more for WELFARE then do it. But to continune to sell Social Security as a "retirement system" with no individual accounts is a scam.
let's let our kids off the hook. 
end rant
|
|
Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:47 pm |
|
|
MattL
Senior Member
Cash: $ 46.85
Posts: 234
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
|
| Re: ss problems |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hellobob
ok, heres my 2 cent RANT
I know there are a million problems with social security, but these are the ones that tic me off the most.
if you stuck the money under your matress , at least you would know where it was.... there is no lockbox, never was one. the money comes in and they pay it out. or spend it on other things.
at the age of 45 I already know there will be little or nothing in SS for me. even though my personal deductions have added up to over 44k and 88k with the employer match. it's not that there will be no SS. its that they have a rule on the books called a WINDFALL exclusion, where in IF you are smart enough or lucky enough to have worked your way into a position where you have a Government pension, IE military and ALL federal and state workers of any kind. then they consider this pension ( that you have worked a minimum of 20 years to obtain) as a WINDFALL, which to me wrongly means it fell in your lap. they then back off your SS benifits by about 60% or more the amount of your pension. which brings me back to" it would have been beter for me to put in in a matress."
Could you imagine any investment house checking to see if you were smart enough to have gotten multiple sources of income befor they would let you tap you investment.
just give me back my actual out of paycheck conrtibutions and I'll call it even.
besides I don't want my kids being taxed to death to support a whole generation of us baby boomers , who were too busy spending their whole lifes to save for their own retirement.
as I said I'm 45, Let's make a new rule and draw the line at 46...
Anybody younger than 46 gets NO SS. if you don't save now you wont have it later.
If you wan't to tax me more for WELFARE then do it. But to continune to sell Social Security as a "retirement system" with no individual accounts is a scam.
let's let our kids off the hook.
end rant
I agree with Bob. To continue the charade just gives people a continued sense of false hope. The Government says the system is not working, yet by not doing away with it they are sending a mixed message. People will still look at it as an alternative to taking care of themselves as long as it is there.
$$$ Debt Elimination
Software | Computers | Electronics
|
|
Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:19 pm |
|
|
joseanes
Full Member
Cash: $ 10.20
Posts: 76
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Marlborough, MA
|
That was the original idea of the SS... but it didn't worked because there wasn't any ownership piece out of it.
As a result, people thought they where taken care of.... and forgot to save for themselves.
-- Jose
http://www.MoneyAndInvesting.net
|
|
Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:27 pm |
|
|
tss4
Contributing Member
Cash: $ 8.45
Posts: 42
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
|
| Re: ss problems |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hellobob
ok, heres my 2 cent RANT
I know there are a million problems with social security, but these are the ones that tic me off the most.
if you stuck the money under your matress , at least you would know where it was.... there is no lockbox, never was one. the money comes in and they pay it out. or spend it on other things.
at the age of 45 I already know there will be little or nothing in SS for me. even though my personal deductions have added up to over 44k and 88k with the employer match. it's not that there will be no SS. its that they have a rule on the books called a WINDFALL exclusion, where in IF you are smart enough or lucky enough to have worked your way into a position where you have a Government pension, IE military and ALL federal and state workers of any kind. then they consider this pension ( that you have worked a minimum of 20 years to obtain) as a WINDFALL, which to me wrongly means it fell in your lap. they then back off your SS benifits by about 60% or more the amount of your pension. which brings me back to" it would have been beter for me to put in in a matress."
Could you imagine any investment house checking to see if you were smart enough to have gotten multiple sources of income befor they would let you tap you investment.
just give me back my actual out of paycheck conrtibutions and I'll call it even.
besides I don't want my kids being taxed to death to support a whole generation of us baby boomers , who were too busy spending their whole lifes to save for their own retirement.
as I said I'm 45, Let's make a new rule and draw the line at 46...
Anybody younger than 46 gets NO SS. if you don't save now you wont have it later.
If you wan't to tax me more for WELFARE then do it. But to continune to sell Social Security as a "retirement system" with no individual accounts is a scam.
let's let our kids off the hook.
end rant
Sorry for your situation, but you are wrong when you say that all state and federal workers fall under this windfall exclusion. I am a federal worker and I do not. My father is a state worker and he does not.
|
|
Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:31 pm |
|
|
mlathe
Contributing Member
Cash: $ 6.15
Posts: 30
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
|
another thing to think about is the currently SS is held in long term T-Bills... this means that your retirement is funding the reckless spending of the current and the previous administrations. You take away SS and suddenly you really have $7,782,816,546,352 in Debt (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) It would no longer be "deffered debt". If that happened, then we would really be fucked!
|
|
Fri Sep 02, 2005 2:25 pm |
|
|
Rolo
Yo' Daddy
Cash: $ 309.70
Posts: 1551
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Location: Colorado/Florida
|
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sarah
Sadly, like it or not, we are our brother's keeper.
True, however, Socialism Security only makes us our brother's "enabler".
It is not a retirement system, it is a welfare system. Welfare for the irresponsible. Nothing more.
quote:
Originally posted by sarah
SS was created because there was a need.
Elaborate on the national 'need'.
quote:
Originally posted by sarah
Some will say that the alternative, to do nothing, gives everyone the freedom to determine their own retirement needs.
This is true. As it stands now, the government has taken away my choice over several hundred dollars a month. The government has also taken away any sense of charity I may have had since it forces its charity. Do note that "government", in this context, means "the people who want free money".
quote:
Originally posted by sarah
but the truth is that it inevitably leads to a class of elderly impoverished.
Wherever you are, you made an appointment to be there.
quote:
Originally posted by sarah
It is, in short, a needed safety net.
No, it has, in fact, created an irresponsible society with a grossly exaggerated sense of entitlement. We have replaced "If you do not work, you do not eat." with "It'll be okay...no matter what you do, or do not do, you will be taken care of...by somebody." This is the point where I remind everyone that communism has failed at every attempt--don't be so arrogant to think that we, somehow, can make it work.
quote:
Originally posted by sarah
We currently require that drivers have automobile insurance. Why? Why not give people the freedom to decide for themselves whether they need such insurance?
You are not forced to have automobile insurance since you are not forced to own an automobile.
Also, that is a flawed argument. Your driving, particularly crashing, into me affects me. Your starving to death does not affect me.
The government's job is to grant us "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", not "life, a place to live, food, liberty, a safety net, a means to bail you out of your own mistakes, and everything you need to experience happiness". SS seriously infringes upon my liberty in pursuit of happiness.
Also, if you have the assets to cover your automobile insurance liabilities, then you should not be required to have insurance since you do not need it.
quote:
Originally posted by sarah
Rather, I think all want it to continue to be mandatory, but not run by the government. They want you to pay money into a private concern for your retirement benefits.
Mostly correct. The less the government makes mandatory, the better off everyone is. I think the government should stick to ENCOURAGING certain behaviours (one reason I am against a flat tax), not forcing them.
"Expect me when you see me."
|
|
Fri Sep 02, 2005 6:00 pm |
|
|
robmejia
Contributing Member
Cash: $ 9.80
Posts: 49
Joined: 04 Nov 2011
|
Each person has a different viewpoint in saving. Some would rather save a big chunk of their earnings to an investment, etc. But some would rather spend a big part of their money to pleasure and just save a little. You couldn't really blame them. We only have one life to live and some rather enjoy the present rather than worry too much about the future.
long term care insurance | long term care insurance quotes | caregivers
|
|
Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:02 am |
|
|
|
