 |
 |
AARP shoots itself in the foot with their current research
August 15th 02:50:11 PM
So the AARP has released their periodic survey about the state of social security. We at S4 feel a little guilty that we didn't chip in for the research, because the numbers make our case for us.
Of course, after paying all of that money for the survey, they've got to use the data somehow. Lets go one-by-one through their findings and explain why they need to put the rose-colored glasses down.
2005 Social Security Anniversary Survey data demonstrate that the primary focus on personal or private accounts during 2005 has broadened and strengthened positive attitudes towards Social Security rather than weakened them.
Does the data lead to this conclusion? No.
On the contrary, 12 percent of respondents (up from 9 percent in 1985) think it would be better to phase out Social Security and require people to rely on private retirement plans.
Nor does the survey show that there are any positive attitudes about Social Security to "broaden and strengthen". 50% of respondenced answered "Agree completely" or "Agree somewhat" to the question In theory, Social Security is still a good idea, but I doubt that this country can afford it anymore. Furthermore, only 10% of respondents answered "Very confident" to the question How much confidence do you have in the future of the Social Security system?
Even if you discount all of the evidence and agree with the AARP, can one really say for sure that alleged increases in support for Social Security are a result of "the primary focus on personal or private accounts during 2005"? You can say it, but there's no evidence to back it up.
When asked which sources of retirement income on which they plan to rely, Social Security is rated a very close second to money accumulated through savings and investments. Furthermore, Social Security is ranked as the most important source of income respondents expect to rely or actually do rely upon, in retirement.
It sounds to me like more people plan to rely on income accumulated through savings and investments instead of Social Security. Wouldn't it be nice if we could allow these people to invest some of their Social Security payments in higher yield stocks or bonds?
Over the past 20 years, Social Security continues to be regarded as an important governmental program by most adult Americans.
No argument here. We at S4 agree that Social Security is important. That's why we're working so hard to protect it from a financial crisis a short 12 years away.
A substantial majority of non-retired adults reject the notion of getting out of the Social Security system.
We also agree here. Social Security should be restructured, but remain as an important retirement security program.
Most non-retired Americans agree that "Maybe I won’t need Social Security when I retire, but I definitely want to know it’s there just in case I do."
Well, if we want Social Security to be there for future retirees, something has to be done now. If we leave the system alone, we're looking at large benefit cuts or tax increases.
Americans would pay more now to maintain and ensure that Social Security will be there for them when they retire.
One has to read this carefully. The respondent is agreeing to pay more up front so that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Nobody said they would pay more now to receive the same or lesser benefits in the future. I call this the "pot committed" answer. Current workers are "pot committed" to the program and would rather pay more to get something back than get nothing back. Personal accounts eliminate this difficult choice.
More Americans now, compared to a decade ago, agree their families would be hard hit if Social Security were cut. Furthermore, fewer Americans think people who receive Social Security benefits would do very well without their benefits.
This is exactly why we should allow people to invest in personal accounts that are not only more secure than the current system because everyone owns their share, but personal accounts invested in a mix of stocks and bonds (or even treasury bonds) would earn a higher return than the current system.
The erosion of confidence in the future of Social Security between 1985 and 1995 has been partially reversed in 2005.
They're really digging for compliments. Even though we have shown from the numbers that people don't have much confidence in the current program, the AARP is going to go and argue that this "lack of confidence" has been "partially reversed". Likewise, I could argue that a survey that says that 98% of respondents oppose murder (down from 99% a year ago) is a "partial reversal" even though those supporting murder increased by only 1% from 1% to 2%.
So what does the survey say about personal accounts specifically?
Using numbers right from the AARP's questionaire, it is quite easy to show that the public would support personal accounts.
In response to the statement: The government made a
commitment to people a long time ago about Social Security being there for them when they retire; the government can't break that
commitment., 80% either "Agreed strongly" or "Agreed somewhat". It has been shown that the only way to be sure that the government meets that commitment is to have personal accounts that are owned by everyone, instead of a giant slush fund that gets spent as part of general revenue.
In response to the statement: It would not be fair to people who
are retired or near retirement to
make major changes to Social
Security that would affect them., 85% "Agreed strongly" or "Agreed somewhat". That's why it is so great that personal accounts are optional. No one is forcing anyone to participate.
Furthermore, 88% believe that Social Security payments are too low or about right, and 79% believe payroll taxes are too high or about right.
So lets summarize. Most Americans have lost confidence in the structure of Social Security, but they feel we should do something to keep it around for our grandchildren. They also think that benefits are too low and taxes are too high, and they could do better investing their own money than giving it to the government.
Posted by Jeremy Tunnell
Comments
1200 people? Had they surveyed their membership, they would not have counted me and a number of others who threw their AARP cards back in the AARP's face when the first SS attack ads came out.
The folks at AARP needed to get their credentials back with the Democrats for allowing GWB to pass the Medicare Prescription Drug bill.
Also the 40 somethings at HQ in AARP view themselves as "activists". A couple of years ago, in my state, the state organization staged several demonstrations against medical tort reform largely funded by the trial lawyer lobby. When I wrote an email asking how they had determined their members views on this issue (I had certainly never seen any poll), I was told that the leadership makes those decisions for the members. I should have thrown the card back at them then. Understand that this group has a serious problem - the over 80's that allowed them to get away with "leadership" decisions are being replaced by Boomers - or in some cases, not being replaced....
Posted by fiona on August 17th 01:14:44 PM
Fiona-
Thanks for taking a stand against AARP. We need to reach more people like you! Let your friends and family know that Personal Accounts are the solution for their children and grandchildren. Also check out the 60+ Association and For Our Grandchildren.
Posted by chris on August 17th 03:44:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
