Should Workers Be Able to Opt out of Social Security for a Privatized Account?

Gingrich unveils a Social Security overhaul which would allow workers to invest in private accounts

November 22, 2011 RSS Feed Print

Former Speaker of the House and Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich Monday unveiled his plan to partially privatize Social Security while speaking at Saint Anselm College's Institute of Politics in Manchester, N.H. Under his overhaul, younger workers could choose not to put their portion of the payroll tax into the government's social security account and rather put it into a private retirement fund of their choice. Their employers would still pay into the government system to sustain Social Security, and thus workers would have access to government Social Security when they retired as well. Gingrich said he modeled his plan after the one in Chile; according to Gingrich the return on private investments in the Chilean version have been so good that its retired recipients have not even needed the government portion of their payments.

[See photos of 2012 GOP hopefuls on the campaign trail]

Former President Bush attempted a similar partial privatization of Social Security in 2005 but was unable to garner enough bipartisan support to pass it. Critics say that private investing puts retirement funds at unnecessary risk, particularly given market volatility. Gingrich contends that his program would be completely by choice, aimed at young people through social media, "I wouldn't make it my program. I'm not going to go around the country trying to sell it." He said he did not plan on instituting any changes that would affect current beneficiaries, and that he is still deciding when and how best to phase in the overhaul. He told reporters he would pay for the transition period by giving states block grants for 185 federal welfare programs like Medicaid for them to administer themselves.

What do you think? Should workers be able to opt out of government Social Security? Take the poll and comment below.

Previously: Who is to Blame for the Failure of the Super Committee?

Tags:: social security,; Newt Gingrich

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

Add Your Thoughts Comment Name State Email

Please enter the two words below into the text field underneath the image.

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Its completely imoral to seize my earnings and force me into an insolvent big-government program. Sickening how the parasites are killing the hosts in this country.

John Ramirez of CA 5:02PM December 22, 2011

To the multiple posters saying I wouldn't give my money to "crooked wallstreet" or however you would like to put it, I ask you this: If you were a new worker in your 20's and were told your SS benefits we not going to be there, would you still want to invest in something that is set to run out before your retirement?
If you've looked at investments as a whole the Madoff scandal(while huge for everybody involved) was not a large chunk of the US market and shouldn't be considered the norm for investing. Millions of people invest without ever running into a ponzi scheme so can we please drop this. He has been convicted and stripped of a lot of his funds, give it up. To the cynical wannabe OWS people out there that comment on wall street without knowing anything about it please quit making the rest of the "99%" like idiots.
If the government can guarantee that SS(and medicaid) will be there when I'm 62-64, then I'll gladly put into SS. But with the way it's going right now the SS fund will be dry by the late 2030's.
I'm not an OWS member nor am I a wall streeter. I'm an average american making average salary for my age(27) & I would like my chance to choose for myself rather than paying into something I'm never gonig to see a dime of. Taking a chance on the market is a better idea (to me) than paying for something I'll never have.

Rhelbig of NJ 11:08AM December 12, 2011

Typical. As I remember when Bush advocated privatization they said it would cost a trillion just for the transition costs of implementing the program. Pubs want to cut spending and then propose a trillion dollar plan with no way to pay for it.
You would think after the stock market tanked to 6,000+ people would be a little dubious about putting all their eggs in that basket. I might add, I wouldn't put a dime in to it as long as the Pubs advocate repeal of Frank-Dodd. Just what we want, to go back to the old of way of doing business....the old way, the way that sank the global economy.
Sure, let greedy Wall Street handle your savings. They really do have your best interest at heart. Ha.

Bobbarooni of ID 7:21PM November 28, 2011

Should Workers Be Able to Opt out of Social Security for a Privatized Account?

Gingrich unveils a Social Security overhaul which would allow workers to invest in private accounts