 |
 |
Rock The Vote/ AARP Poll Shows Broad Support for Personal Accounts
September 13th 04:50:37 PM
What a great poll by AARP/RTV!
8a. Some people propose allowing workers to invest some of their Social Security payroll taxes in the stock market
through individual retirement accounts. For the average worker, this portion could be up to $1,300 per year that they
could invest. In general, do you favor or oppose this approach? Is that strongly or somewhat?
| Total | 18-39 | 40-59 | 60+ | Females | Hispanics | Afr. Am.
|
| Strongly favor | 29 | 36 | 33 | 15 | 25 | 30 | 25
|
| Somewhat favor | 24 | 32 | 21 | 19 | 26 | 28 | 23
|
| Somewhat oppose | 14 | 12 | 14 | 19 | 17 | 13 | 16
|
| Strongly oppose | 28 | 16 | 29 | 41 | 27 | 22 | 28
|
| Don't know | 5 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 7
|
Posted by Chris Schrimpf
Comments
Don't you know by now that these people are too stupid to think for themselves...obviously, they need protection from AARP!
Posted by Adam Cahn on September 14th 11:59:48 AM
Do people in favor of these 'private accounts' realize that the issue of increased government interference in U.S. equity markets? Probably not since organizations like yours dumb the issue down by only focusing on maximizing the amount of money you can get out of a particular govt. program instead of doing something beneficial like trying to make government smaller and less intrusive. And Crock the Vote offers no argument of substance whatsoever. And this is actually considered a debate. So sad
Posted by Noid on September 14th 11:46:49 PM
Actualy, instead of asking if they realize the implications of private accounts, look at the real poll. (Essentially, Mr. Schrimpf is misrepresenting the poll results so egregiously that his dishonesty almost rises to the point of a blatant lie.)
Apparently Mr. Schrimpf assumed no-one would go to the trouble of actually following the link he provided, and reading the entire report. This poll came from a study which asked at least 29 questions of each person polled. The question Mr. Schrimpf shows the results for is the base "Private Accounts without considering consequences" question. There are numerous follow up questions asking opinions about private accounts IF certain consequences would result.
Here are some quotes from the pollsters conclusions:
"A majority of Americans have a favorable view of Social Security (62%), and two-thirds (66%) support keeping the program as close to the current system as possible."
"The public recognizes the need for Social Security reform. However, they do not believe that private accounts will resolve the shortfalls Social Security might have in the future. People tend to see Social Security solvency and private accounts as separate and distinct issues."
"...the initial 53% of the adult public who favor private accounts drops to between 20% and 40% depending on the consequence presented."
"When asked about their perceptions of the current Social Security system, 8 in 10 agreed that: Social Security should be strengthened not replaced (80%). This strong preference extends across all age, race/ethnicity, and gender groups."
"After initial supporters of private accounts had been exposed to each of the consequences of diverting payroll taxes to fund private accounts, only 7% never changed their mind, and still favored them. This means, in the context of the entire survey sample, that only 4% favored this approach regardless of the consequences."
Posted by Bret Wood on September 16th 05:01:17 AM
Private accounts is just the same as saying (do away with SS) A system that has worked very well for years, until it was raided to pay for a needless war, should not be changed. Also the government should be required to replace all money taken out. At one time it was the most solvent fund the government could take money from. I worked and supported SS for 45 years. It upsets me and every one I know, that anyone would suggest messing with it.
Posted by Lowell Varney on September 17th 10:41:44 AM
Lowell,
I understand where you're coming from, but I think you are making two errors in reasoning.
It always frustrates me that some people find it convenient to blame everything on "a needless war". The truth is that Congress has been raiding the trust fund since payroll taxes were raised in 1983. The US has been involved in a heck of a lot more wars than just the latest "needless war" in the last 25 years. You can blame the current SS problems on a lot of things, but this is not one of them.
Second, you say that the government should be required to replace all of the money that was taken out. I think you misunderstand the problem. We are not arguing that the government doesn't intend to pay back the money. In fact, that is the centerpiece of our argument. *Because* the government has to pay back the money, we are, in effect, pushing Social Security's problems onto future generations.
That's just not right.
With personal accounts, the current generation's retirement would be funded by the current generation. We think this is the right way to go about it, and the numbers up above show that the majority of Americans agree with us.
Posted by Jeremy Tunnell on September 17th 02:34:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
