Do you Social Security fearmongers realize you can't get something for nothing?

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Social Security fearmongers constantly bemoan the fact that the investment of excess FICA revenue in obligations of the United States Treasury means the burden of making up the projected shortfalls in FICA will fall on the taxpayer, and hence, the U.S. economy. That is of course - true.

I have to ask - what other domestic investment vehicle could have prevented the burden from falling on the U.S. economy?

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S.corporate debt, then it would be U.S. corporations that have to make up the shortfall - thus the burden still falls on the U.S. economy.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S. stocks, the shortfall would be made up for with dividends from U.S.companies and with sale of stock positions to mostly U.S. citizens - thus the burden again, falls on the U.S. economy to make up the shortfall.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in insurance contracts with U.S. insurers -still the burden falls on the U.S. economy.


The alternative would be to invest in assets with large foreign exposure - like commodities, foreign stock and debt, etc. - but then when the Trust Fund runs in the black, its taking U.S. tax revenues and sending them OUT of the country - investing them in foreign nations instead of the U.S. economy - thus STILL the burden falls on the U.S. economy!

So how would you have done it in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy? BE SPECIFIC

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Social Security fearmongers constantly bemoan the fact that the investment of excess FICA revenue in obligations of the United States Treasury means the burden of making up the projected shortfalls in FICA will fall on the taxpayer, and hence, the U.S. economy. That is of course - true.

I have to ask - what other domestic investment vehicle could have prevented the burden from falling on the U.S. economy?

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S.corporate debt, then it would be U.S. corporations that have to make up the shortfall - thus the burden still falls on the U.S. economy.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S. stocks, the shortfall would be made up for with dividends from U.S.companies and with sale of stock positions to mostly U.S. citizens - thus the burden again, falls on the U.S. economy to make up the shortfall.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in insurance contracts with U.S. insurers -still the burden falls on the U.S. economy.


The alternative would be to invest in assets with large foreign exposure - like commodities, foreign stock and debt, etc. - but then when the Trust Fund runs in the black, its taking U.S. tax revenues and sending them OUT of the country - investing them in foreign nations instead of the U.S. economy - thus STILL the burden falls on the U.S. economy!

So how would you have done it in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy? BE SPECIFIC

I think the problem here is you confuse investment and theft. Did you used to do Madoff's books?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Democrats and their Social Security fear mongering.. it's sucks huh..

It started of with a 2% rate now it's up to 12.4%...

Is there any doubt that using the funds for anything other than it's intended use is ponzi-esk...

 

[westwall]

How about letting the people keep their money and invest it how they see fit? Seems to me the only people who think they can get something for nothing is you lefty types. Something about cause and effect has passed you by. Remarkable really, when you think about it, how do you feed yourselves?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Social Security fearmongers constantly bemoan the fact that the investment of excess FICA revenue in obligations of the United States Treasury means the burden of making up the projected shortfalls in FICA will fall on the taxpayer, and hence, the U.S. economy. That is of course - true.

I have to ask - what other domestic investment vehicle could have prevented the burden from falling on the U.S. economy?

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S.corporate debt, then it would be U.S. corporations that have to make up the shortfall - thus the burden still falls on the U.S. economy.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S. stocks, the shortfall would be made up for with dividends from U.S.companies and with sale of stock positions to mostly U.S. citizens - thus the burden again, falls on the U.S. economy to make up the shortfall.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in insurance contracts with U.S. insurers -still the burden falls on the U.S. economy.


The alternative would be to invest in assets with large foreign exposure - like commodities, foreign stock and debt, etc. - but then when the Trust Fund runs in the black, its taking U.S. tax revenues and sending them OUT of the country - investing them in foreign nations instead of the U.S. economy - thus STILL the burden falls on the U.S. economy!

So how would you have done it in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy? BE SPECIFIC

I think the problem here is you confuse investment and theft. Did you used to do Madoff's books?

Do you have an actual answer to my question?

 

[zzzz]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq3wL8ZXjBU]1981 Fram Oil Filter Commercial - YouTube[/ame]

 

[healthmyths]

Why are you against the individual accumulating $400,000 or more???
Why are you and the below AGAINST the average worker HAVING THE CHOICE???
There are MORE democrat/liberal/progressives that are violently against the average USA worker accumulating a retirement nest egg of $400,000 or more!

An average worker grossing $30,000 a year at age 23 after college entering the workforce with the salary increasing by 20% every 10 years for 42 years would have along with employer had $331,715 deducted.

If the worker HAD the freedom to direct the accumulation into a simple savings account that paid over 42 years 2% interest would accumulate $628,077!
Why is there ANYONE against the worker accumulating this?

And if the worker using tried and true financial planning where at young age more growth oriented assets moving to balance at middle age and almost all secured assets nearing retirement the average accumulation at 6% for 42 years would be: $1,985,897!

So why did ALL democrats/liberals/progressives all scare seniors thinking their social security was when Bush proposed privatization going to be at the hands of Wall street!
Gambling with their social security!
LIED through their teeth and seniors NEVER heard Bush's plan and now Ryan's plan
would HAVE NO CHANGES for over 55 years old!
No they showed Ryan pushing grandma over a cliff!

Isn't it just amazing the power of compound interest that could make the average worker at $30,000 a year accumulate almost $2 million!
Never again depending on anyone but at 5% interest earnings have $100K/year for ever!
Never having to depend on Medicare! Or the Government!
WHY folks are liberals/progressives against the ordinary person accumulating millions?
Ignorance is the ONLY reason I can think is why they are against it!

 

[naturegirl]

Before anyone gets too excited, there are no tax cuts or credits to SS withholding. The reduction in SS withholding will be transferred from other places. The only way 0bozo can ensure all working Americans get the deduction is to reduce the mandated SS deduction as many people that work may have little or no federal withholding tax deducted from their checks.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why are you against the individual accumulating $400,000 or more???
Why are you and the below AGAINST the average worker HAVING THE CHOICE???
There are MORE democrat/liberal/progressives that are violently against the average USA worker accumulating a retirement nest egg of $400,000 or more!

An average worker grossing $30,000 a year at age 23 after college entering the workforce with the salary increasing by 20% every 10 years for 42 years would have along with employer had $331,715 deducted.

If the worker HAD the freedom to direct the accumulation into a simple savings account that paid over 42 years 2% interest would accumulate $628,077!
Why is there ANYONE against the worker accumulating this?

And if the worker using tried and true financial planning where at young age more growth oriented assets moving to balance at middle age and almost all secured assets nearing retirement the average accumulation at 6% for 42 years would be: $1,985,897!

So why did ALL democrats/liberals/progressives all scare seniors thinking their social security was when Bush proposed privatization going to be at the hands of Wall street!
Gambling with their social security!
LIED through their teeth and seniors NEVER heard Bush's plan and now Ryan's plan
would HAVE NO CHANGES for over 55 years old!
No they showed Ryan pushing grandma over a cliff!

Isn't it just amazing the power of compound interest that could make the average worker at $30,000 a year accumulate almost $2 million!
Never again depending on anyone but at 5% interest earnings have $100K/year for ever!
Never having to depend on Medicare! Or the Government!
WHY folks are liberals/progressives against the ordinary person accumulating millions?
Ignorance is the ONLY reason I can think is why they are against it!

How does that relieve the U.S. economy of the burden? Did you understand my question at all?

And if the worker using tried and true financial planning where at young age more growth oriented assets moving to balance at middle age and almost all secured assets nearing retirement the average accumulation at 6% for 42 years would be: $1,985,897!

You do realize that if everyone had been investing FICA taxes in the stock market over the last 42 years - the price of stock would have been different over that period? Namely - higher. Except now, with more retirees, it would be lower. Like it says in the title - you can't get something for nothing.


Not to mention the burden of making those stock investments valuable in retirement still falls on the U.S. economy. Please tell me you understand basic economics.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm not getting something for nothing with SS I am getting nothing for something.

The disability part of SS is the worst around. I have a private policy that is infinitely better and costs less. If I could save the 15% of my money that the government steals from me to run its off the books slush fund, I'd be retired already and collecting 10 times more a month than the max SS benefit.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The disability part of SS is the worst around. I have a private policy that is infinitely better and costs less.

Does it cover your children?

If I could save the 15% of my money that the government steals from me to run its off the books slush fund, I'd be retired already and collecting 10 times more a month than the max SS benefit.

And how would that relieve the U.S. economy of the burden of your retirement?

Does ANYONE understand the question?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Can anyone actually read, understand, and answer my question? What could the Trust Fund have been invested in that would not have placed the burden on the U.S. economy?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This is your second thread on the subject in a week. Did you think that simply rewording it would change the results?

Are you sure your not Obama?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why are you against the individual accumulating $400,000 or more???

Because that would mean individual people would be taking care of themselves and the left only has political power as long as people are dependent on them instead.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why are you against the individual accumulating $400,000 or more???

Because that would mean individual people would be taking care of themselves and the left only has political power as long as people are dependent on them instead.

So how would you have done it in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy?

 

[snjmom]

There is no way to not burden the economy. Except wholesale slaughter of the indigent. That works really well.

 

[westwall]

Can anyone actually read, understand, and answer my question? What could the Trust Fund have been invested in that would not have placed the burden on the U.S. economy?

Why don't you look at our responses to your nonsensical question. Your underlying premise is flawed, thus, anything you propose is inherently flawed as well.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why don't you look at our responses to your nonsensical question.

I have responded to all of them. None have answered the question

Your underlying premise is flawed, thus, anything you propose is inherently flawed as well.

How so? Can you be specific and support with evidence, or is this just a gut feewing?

 

[westwall]

Why don't you look at our responses to your nonsensical question.

I have responded to all of them. None have answered the question

Your underlying premise is flawed, thus, anything you propose is inherently flawed as well.

How so? Can you be specific and support with evidence, or is this just a gut feewing?

Your question is inherently flawed thus no answer will suffice or are you not capable of understanding that?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why don't you look at our responses to your nonsensical question.

I have responded to all of them. None have answered the question

Your underlying premise is flawed, thus, anything you propose is inherently flawed as well.

How so? Can you be specific and support with evidence, or is this just a gut feewing?

Your question is inherently flawed thus no answer will suffice or are you not capable of understanding that?

How is it inherently flawed?