Beating Social Security

[NYcarbineer]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Another ol' fogey who can't read, or can't remember what he's read.

From the OP:
"Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it."


Gads....you Liberals loose all ability to think when criticism of your god is advanced.


Bulletin: Roosevelt made LOTS of mistakes.

Social Security has evolved. It has lasted for 75 years of republican predictions of impending doom

It needs to be adjusted with a retirement age of 70 and higher payment limits, but other than that, it is working well

Is this your paean to President Ronald Reagan who saved Roosevelt's bacon (Social Security) in 1983???


YOU????

So you're not too old to learn, huh?



"In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see? Are you capable of an opinion of your own?

She's going to obfuscate her ass off in this thread now because her original absurd claims have put her tit squarely into the wringer.

A lovely anatomically mixed metaphor wouldn't you say? lol

 

[rightwinger]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Another ol' fogey who can't read, or can't remember what he's read.

From the OP:
"Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it."


Gads....you Liberals loose all ability to think when criticism of your god is advanced.


Bulletin: Roosevelt made LOTS of mistakes.

Social Security has evolved. It has lasted for 75 years of republican predictions of impending doom

It needs to be adjusted with a retirement age of 70 and higher payment limits, but other than that, it is working well

Is this your paean to President Ronald Reagan who saved Roosevelt's bacon (Social Security) in 1983???


YOU????

So you're not too old to learn, huh?



"In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see?

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments.

I imagine it takes a while to find something to cut and paste

I will wait with baited breath for your profound observations on saving Social Security

 

[JakeStarkey]

SS, yes, can be easily reformed.

PC is simply wailing and flailing.

Make first retirement age 70 and increase the cap to a million income per year.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. The question is, is there a better plan than the one Roosevelt saddled America with?
Sure is.
Probably a number of 'em.



I received the following, an un-authored email, and took a look at the numbers provided....
...and they seem accurate.




Perhaps those receiving Social Security would compare them to the benefits they currently receive.
Let's start.....


" The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment." This isn't a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.
It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.

If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security."




The inept policies of Barack Obama have proven detrimental to American pocketbooks ["Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...during-recovery-during-recession_750068.html],
the current ].......median household income is $51,939 Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


" President Obama took office in the first quarter of 2009, when median household income was $54,797.63."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/fact-check-income-losses-under-obama/?_r=0



Democrat policies are as good vis-a-vis Democrat Roosevelt's Social Security as Democrat Obama's have proven to be for the economy.....a failure.



Now...let's inspect the data in that email:
If the average salary over 40 years of a worker's career averaged the $30K noted, @15% Social Security tax (worker plus employer), then it does come to $180,000 kicked in.

Hmmmm......Accurate so far.

 

[Rustic]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time





2. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”


No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?


a. Like this:
Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History




As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....

....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.

Another failed socialist program for the lazy...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stop the nonsense, PC.

How would you reform SS?

 

[rightwinger]

5. The question is, is there a better plan than the one Roosevelt saddled America with?
Sure is.
Probably a number of 'em.



I received the following, an un-authored email, and took a look at the numbers provided....
...and they seem accurate.




Perhaps those receiving Social Security would compare them to the benefits they currently receive.
Let's start.....


" The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment." This isn't a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.
It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.

If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security."




The inept policies of Barack Obama have proven detrimental to American pocketbooks ["Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...during-recovery-during-recession_750068.html],
the current ].......median household income is $51,939 Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


" President Obama took office in the first quarter of 2009, when median household income was $54,797.63."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/fact-check-income-losses-under-obama/?_r=0



Democrat policies are as good vis-a-vis Democrat Roosevelt's Social Security as Democrat Obama's have proven to be for the economy.....a failure.



Now...let's inspect the data in that email:
If the average salary over 40 years of a worker's career averaged the $30K noted, @15% Social Security tax (worker plus employer), then it does come to $180,000 kicked in.

Hmmmm......Accurate so far.

Still waiting for a viable proposal to replace Social Security....Remember, you have to "Beat" what we have

You still have over 200 million Americans you have to pay benefits to. You don't get to tear it up and start over. So your plan will have to provide a means to transition to a new program

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another ol' fogey who can't read, or can't remember what he's read.

From the OP:
"Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it."


Gads....you Liberals loose all ability to think when criticism of your god is advanced.


Bulletin: Roosevelt made LOTS of mistakes.

Social Security has evolved. It has lasted for 75 years of republican predictions of impending doom

It needs to be adjusted with a retirement age of 70 and higher payment limits, but other than that, it is working well

Is this your paean to President Ronald Reagan who saved Roosevelt's bacon (Social Security) in 1983???


YOU????

So you're not too old to learn, huh?



"In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see?

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments.

You're claiming that SS has never been 'adjusted' as you call it?

Cannot be adjusted?

Goddam you're stupid.

Just for fun let's show everyone that you lie even when the truth might be more convenient.

Ready?

"You're claiming that SS has never been 'adjusted' as you call it?

Cannot be adjusted?"

Where is a quote of mine saying that?



That was simple.

Now your greatest lie: "Goddam you're stupid."



Don't ever change.

 

[regent]

Republicans have made progress accepting SS, no longer is it a communist program straight from Karl Marx but it now has possibilities. As I remember one fear of FDR was how to keep the Republicans destroying the program when they got into office.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. The question is, is there a better plan than the one Roosevelt saddled America with?
Sure is.
Probably a number of 'em.



I received the following, an un-authored email, and took a look at the numbers provided....
...and they seem accurate.




Perhaps those receiving Social Security would compare them to the benefits they currently receive.
Let's start.....


" The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment." This isn't a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.
It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.

If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security."




The inept policies of Barack Obama have proven detrimental to American pocketbooks ["Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...during-recovery-during-recession_750068.html],
the current ].......median household income is $51,939 Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


" President Obama took office in the first quarter of 2009, when median household income was $54,797.63."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/fact-check-income-losses-under-obama/?_r=0



Democrat policies are as good vis-a-vis Democrat Roosevelt's Social Security as Democrat Obama's have proven to be for the economy.....a failure.



Now...let's inspect the data in that email:
If the average salary over 40 years of a worker's career averaged the $30K noted, @15% Social Security tax (worker plus employer), then it does come to $180,000 kicked in.

Hmmmm......Accurate so far.

Still waiting for a viable proposal to replace Social Security....Remember, you have to "Beat" what we have

You still have over 200 million Americans you have to pay benefits to. You don't get to tear it up and start over. So your plan will have to provide a means to transition to a new program

"Remember, you have to "Beat" what we have."
Psst....I'm not the one having troubling remembering stuff.
Have you tried B12 shots?

And my posts will do exactly what you've asked.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Social Security has evolved. It has lasted for 75 years of republican predictions of impending doom

It needs to be adjusted with a retirement age of 70 and higher payment limits, but other than that, it is working well

Is this your paean to President Ronald Reagan who saved Roosevelt's bacon (Social Security) in 1983???


YOU????

So you're not too old to learn, huh?



"In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see?

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments.

You're claiming that SS has never been 'adjusted' as you call it?

Cannot be adjusted?

Goddam you're stupid.

Just for fun let's show everyone that you lie even when the truth might be more convenient.

Ready?

"You're claiming that SS has never been 'adjusted' as you call it?

Cannot be adjusted?"

Where is a quote of mine saying that?



That was simple.

Now your greatest lie: "Goddam you're stupid."



Don't ever change.

So I got you to admit that SS CAN be adjusted.

Case closed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Social Security has evolved. It has lasted for 75 years of republican predictions of impending doom

It needs to be adjusted with a retirement age of 70 and higher payment limits, but other than that, it is working well

Is this your paean to President Ronald Reagan who saved Roosevelt's bacon (Social Security) in 1983???


YOU????

So you're not too old to learn, huh?



"In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see?

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments.

You're claiming that SS has never been 'adjusted' as you call it?

Cannot be adjusted?

Goddam you're stupid.

Just for fun let's show everyone that you lie even when the truth might be more convenient.

Ready?

"You're claiming that SS has never been 'adjusted' as you call it?

Cannot be adjusted?"

Where is a quote of mine saying that?



That was simple.

Now your greatest lie: "Goddam you're stupid."



Don't ever change.

"the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments."

Two points. FDR is dead. SS has been adjusted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans have made progress accepting SS, no longer is it a communist program straight from Karl Marx but it now has possibilities. As I remember one fear of FDR was how to keep the Republicans destroying the program when they got into office.

OMG!

Another oldie who can't remember what he just read.

This, from the OP:
"Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread."



There are 60 million Americans receiving Social Security benefits....a third of them need it to live.
Republicans are no less concerned with the poor....their solutions are just smarter and better able to solve the problems.


Reagan saved Social Security.


"...no longer is it a communist program straight from Karl Marx."
You said that,...not I.

But there is no doubt that the the program is a big government solution,and a fiscal failure.
Stay tuned.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is this your paean to President Ronald Reagan who saved Roosevelt's bacon (Social Security) in 1983???


YOU????

So you're not too old to learn, huh?



"In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see?

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments.

You're claiming that SS has never been 'adjusted' as you call it?

Cannot be adjusted?

Goddam you're stupid.

Just for fun let's show everyone that you lie even when the truth might be more convenient.

Ready?

"You're claiming that SS has never been 'adjusted' as you call it?

Cannot be adjusted?"

Where is a quote of mine saying that?



That was simple.

Now your greatest lie: "Goddam you're stupid."



Don't ever change.

So I got you to admit that SS CAN be adjusted.

Case closed.

Nah....I know it was beating an expired equus, but I love showing what a liar you are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC's posts have demonstrated she does not grasp the issue.

 

[rightwinger]

5. The question is, is there a better plan than the one Roosevelt saddled America with?
Sure is.
Probably a number of 'em.



I received the following, an un-authored email, and took a look at the numbers provided....
...and they seem accurate.




Perhaps those receiving Social Security would compare them to the benefits they currently receive.
Let's start.....


" The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment." This isn't a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.
It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.

If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security."




The inept policies of Barack Obama have proven detrimental to American pocketbooks ["Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...during-recovery-during-recession_750068.html],
the current ].......median household income is $51,939 Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


" President Obama took office in the first quarter of 2009, when median household income was $54,797.63."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/fact-check-income-losses-under-obama/?_r=0



Democrat policies are as good vis-a-vis Democrat Roosevelt's Social Security as Democrat Obama's have proven to be for the economy.....a failure.



Now...let's inspect the data in that email:
If the average salary over 40 years of a worker's career averaged the $30K noted, @15% Social Security tax (worker plus employer), then it does come to $180,000 kicked in.

Hmmmm......Accurate so far.

Still waiting for a viable proposal to replace Social Security....Remember, you have to "Beat" what we have

You still have over 200 million Americans you have to pay benefits to. You don't get to tear it up and start over. So your plan will have to provide a means to transition to a new program

"Remember, you have to "Beat" what we have."
Psst....I'm not the one having troubling remembering stuff.
Have you tried B12 shots?

And my posts will do exactly what you've asked.

Still looking for a viable plan

Guess over the last two hours you still can't find what you want to cut and paste. Hundreds of millions of lives hang in the balance

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. The question is, is there a better plan than the one Roosevelt saddled America with?
Sure is.
Probably a number of 'em.



I received the following, an un-authored email, and took a look at the numbers provided....
...and they seem accurate.




Perhaps those receiving Social Security would compare them to the benefits they currently receive.
Let's start.....


" The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment." This isn't a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.
It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.

If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security."




The inept policies of Barack Obama have proven detrimental to American pocketbooks ["Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...during-recovery-during-recession_750068.html],
the current ].......median household income is $51,939 Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


" President Obama took office in the first quarter of 2009, when median household income was $54,797.63."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/fact-check-income-losses-under-obama/?_r=0



Democrat policies are as good vis-a-vis Democrat Roosevelt's Social Security as Democrat Obama's have proven to be for the economy.....a failure.



Now...let's inspect the data in that email:
If the average salary over 40 years of a worker's career averaged the $30K noted, @15% Social Security tax (worker plus employer), then it does come to $180,000 kicked in.

Hmmmm......Accurate so far.

Still waiting for a viable proposal to replace Social Security....Remember, you have to "Beat" what we have

You still have over 200 million Americans you have to pay benefits to. You don't get to tear it up and start over. So your plan will have to provide a means to transition to a new program

"Remember, you have to "Beat" what we have."
Psst....I'm not the one having troubling remembering stuff.
Have you tried B12 shots?

And my posts will do exactly what you've asked.

Still looking for a viable plan

Guess over the last two hours you still can't find what you want to cut and paste. Hundreds of millions of lives hang in the balance

Calm down, old timer.

I plan the entire thread before the first post.
You didn't know that?

Did you want to explain the vapid 'cut and paste' comment?
You object to facts posted by that method?

Or are you grasping at straws because you have no adequate response to said facts.
You can be honest....just between us.

 

[rightwinger]

5. The question is, is there a better plan than the one Roosevelt saddled America with?
Sure is.
Probably a number of 'em.



I received the following, an un-authored email, and took a look at the numbers provided....
...and they seem accurate.




Perhaps those receiving Social Security would compare them to the benefits they currently receive.
Let's start.....


" The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment." This isn't a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.
It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.

If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security."




The inept policies of Barack Obama have proven detrimental to American pocketbooks ["Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...during-recovery-during-recession_750068.html],
the current ].......median household income is $51,939 Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


" President Obama took office in the first quarter of 2009, when median household income was $54,797.63."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/fact-check-income-losses-under-obama/?_r=0



Democrat policies are as good vis-a-vis Democrat Roosevelt's Social Security as Democrat Obama's have proven to be for the economy.....a failure.



Now...let's inspect the data in that email:
If the average salary over 40 years of a worker's career averaged the $30K noted, @15% Social Security tax (worker plus employer), then it does come to $180,000 kicked in.

Hmmmm......Accurate so far.

Still waiting for a viable proposal to replace Social Security....Remember, you have to "Beat" what we have

You still have over 200 million Americans you have to pay benefits to. You don't get to tear it up and start over. So your plan will have to provide a means to transition to a new program

"Remember, you have to "Beat" what we have."
Psst....I'm not the one having troubling remembering stuff.
Have you tried B12 shots?

And my posts will do exactly what you've asked.

Still looking for a viable plan

Guess over the last two hours you still can't find what you want to cut and paste. Hundreds of millions of lives hang in the balance

Calm down, old timer.

I plan the entire thread before the first post.
You didn't know that?

Did you want to explain the vapid 'cut and paste' comment?
You object to facts posted by that method?

Or are you grasping at straws because you have no adequate response to said facts.
You can be honest....just between us.

Good god sweetheart
We will all be retired by the time you cut and paste "your" idea

OK...I'll help you along

You have $180,000 lifetime investment. How are you going to pay the 200 million people who are now in the Social Security system and then pay an annual allotment (adjusted for inflation) that will support a worker for 30 years?

Dazzle us with your math skills

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. The email goes on:

" If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved!"


Is that possible???
Is it accurate?


a. I found this:

"...look at the $375 monthly payment invested at a "meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly". First, compounding an investment at 1% compounded monthly becomes 12.7% annual growth rate (1.01 raised to the 12th power). I would not consider this "meager". Also, if you used this 1% compounded monthly, your $375 monthly payment becomes $4.4 million over this 40 year work career which is very different than the $1.3 million stated in the email."
Understanding Data in the News: Social Security Myths Set Straight



b. Do banks compound monthly?
Yup.
" Interest on savings accounts is usually compounded daily and paid monthly. " How do savings accounts work?



c. And this:
· One pays a rate of 10%, compounded annually.

· One pays a rate of 9.6%, compounded monthly.

· One pays a rate of 9.5%, compounded continuously.
All of these accounts pay interest at the same rate (up to one decimal place, anyway). https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-banks-that-actually-offer-continuous-compound-interest




Let's go with the lower accrued total of $1.3 million, rather that the generous $4.4 million.
Does the Roosevelt plan pay off commensurate with those figures?


Judging by who posted this thread....wadda you think?
I'll prove it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. The question is, is there a better plan than the one Roosevelt saddled America with?
Sure is.
Probably a number of 'em.



I received the following, an un-authored email, and took a look at the numbers provided....
...and they seem accurate.




Perhaps those receiving Social Security would compare them to the benefits they currently receive.
Let's start.....


" The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment." This isn't a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.
It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.

If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security."




The inept policies of Barack Obama have proven detrimental to American pocketbooks ["Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...during-recovery-during-recession_750068.html],
the current ].......median household income is $51,939 Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


" President Obama took office in the first quarter of 2009, when median household income was $54,797.63."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/fact-check-income-losses-under-obama/?_r=0



Democrat policies are as good vis-a-vis Democrat Roosevelt's Social Security as Democrat Obama's have proven to be for the economy.....a failure.



Now...let's inspect the data in that email:
If the average salary over 40 years of a worker's career averaged the $30K noted, @15% Social Security tax (worker plus employer), then it does come to $180,000 kicked in.

Hmmmm......Accurate so far.

Still waiting for a viable proposal to replace Social Security....Remember, you have to "Beat" what we have

You still have over 200 million Americans you have to pay benefits to. You don't get to tear it up and start over. So your plan will have to provide a means to transition to a new program

"Remember, you have to "Beat" what we have."
Psst....I'm not the one having troubling remembering stuff.
Have you tried B12 shots?

And my posts will do exactly what you've asked.

Still looking for a viable plan

Guess over the last two hours you still can't find what you want to cut and paste. Hundreds of millions of lives hang in the balance

Calm down, old timer.

I plan the entire thread before the first post.
You didn't know that?

Did you want to explain the vapid 'cut and paste' comment?
You object to facts posted by that method?

Or are you grasping at straws because you have no adequate response to said facts.
You can be honest....just between us.

Good god sweetheart
We will all be retired by the time you cut and paste "your" idea

OK...I'll help you along

You have $180,000 lifetime investment. How are you going to pay the 200 million people who are now in the Social Security system and then pay an annual allotment (adjusted for inflation) that will support a worker for 30 years?

Dazzle us with your math skills

Did I frighten you with this?
Can't back up your words?
Another difference between us.

"Did you want to explain the vapid 'cut and paste' comment?
You object to facts posted by that method?"

Or did it slip that failing memory of yours?