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

[Soggy in NOLA]

Its fundamentally no different than a company pension plan.

Oh no, it's vastly different.

Yet you can't explain it.

What's to explain? How stupid are you?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Maybe you need a reading course? Yes, clearly you do.

I didn't eliminate any investment vehicle. If Congress had invested it rather than spent it, we would not be in this predicament.

Immie

The Social Security Fund bought treasury obligations with it.

Please explain what SPECIFIC choices would have been better.

Now you are changing the question.

The answer to this depends on the objective. Is the objective to maximize retiree benefits? Or maximize the amount that the government confiscates from citizens never to be paid back again? Or some other criteria?

Immie

The objective for YOU should be to complete your GED.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oh no, it's vastly different.

Yet you can't explain it.

What's to explain?

Scroll back using the links.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Social Security Fund bought treasury obligations with it.

Please explain what SPECIFIC choices would have been better.

Now you are changing the question.

The answer to this depends on the objective. Is the objective to maximize retiree benefits? Or maximize the amount that the government confiscates from citizens never to be paid back again? Or some other criteria?

Immie

The objective for YOU should be to complete your GED.

How about you finish first grade.. then get back to us.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yet you can't explain it.

What's to explain?

Scroll back using the links.

Seriously, if you think SS and a private pension plan are the same, you're nuts.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Now you are changing the question.

The answer to this depends on the objective. Is the objective to maximize retiree benefits? Or maximize the amount that the government confiscates from citizens never to be paid back again? Or some other criteria?

Immie

The objective for YOU should be to complete your GED.

How about you finish first grade.. then get back to us.

Sure, right after you explain what Trust Fund investments would remove the burden of providing for the retired from the U.S. economy.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, you could have just let us manage our money and not stolen it from us to begin with. Then you wouldn't have to worry about "investing" it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Well, you could have just let us manage our money and not stolen it from us to begin with. Then you wouldn't have to worry about "investing" it.

Then what happens when you exchange your savings for goods and services in retirement? Are you telling me that the economy won't have to produce those goods and services - they'll just materialize out of thin air? What happens if you live so long you run out of money? You'll just go back to work I take it? Kill yourself maybe?

What happens to current Social Security beneficiaries when we defund the program by eliminating FICA or divert it into individual retirement accounts? Just, fuck them?

 

[alan1]

Is it your proposal that nobody should ever retire?

No. However, it is my proposal you answer the question posed at the end of the OP.

What about children?

What about them?

Should they be forced to work since they are obviously using resources?

No. Are you retarded or something?

No.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Is it your proposal that nobody should ever retire?

No. However, it is my proposal you answer the question posed at the end of the OP.


What about them?

Should they be forced to work since they are obviously using resources?

No. Are you retarded or something?

No.

Then why do you want to force children to work?

 

[alan1]

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

Why would you support an obviously racist program?
Below is an analysis and treatise I did some time back. I think it bears repeating here.

--------------------------------
Black Men Don’t Get Social Security

Well, the average black male gets no social security. It doesn’t matter how much they contribute.
All one has to do is look at the numbers to discover this.

For people born prior to 1955, the age to collect full social security benefits is age 66.
The average life span for a black male born prior to 1955 is less than 60 years.

For people born after 1959, the age to collect full social security is 67.
The average predicted life span of a black male doesn’t exceed 67 years unless he was born after 1996.
Somehow, I am guessing that the age to collect full social security benefits will be raised before some person born in 1996 actually reaches the current 67 year old age requirement.

The average life expectancy for a black male born in 1970 is 60 years. We can assume that he begins earning income and paying FICA tax at 20 years of age. That means he puts 6.2% of his gross income into the system for 40 years. His employer matches that at 6.2% also. Based upon statistics, the average black male collects nothing from that 40 year contribution.

That’s what I call a zero sum benefit for black men. Had he taken that same 12.4% and stuffed it under his mattress, his wife or children would have it.

Here is a link to the average life expectancy for blacks and whites by gender, just in case you want to see where you fit in. Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930–2007 — Infoplease.com

Thanks for being one of many posters to answer one of many questions I did NOT ask!

You are welcome.
And,
You didn't answer my question either, so I guess that makes us even.

 

[alan1]

No. However, it is my proposal you answer the question posed at the end of the OP.


What about them?



No. Are you retarded or something?

No.

Then why do you want to force children to work?

I don't want to force them to work.
Want to try and put any more words into my mouth?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No.

Then why do you want to force children to work?

I don't want to force them to work.

Then why did you bring it up?

Want to try and put any more words into my mouth?

As long as you keep putting them in mine, yes.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why would you support an obviously racist program?
Below is an analysis and treatise I did some time back. I think it bears repeating here.

--------------------------------
Black Men Don’t Get Social Security

Well, the average black male gets no social security. It doesn’t matter how much they contribute.
All one has to do is look at the numbers to discover this.

For people born prior to 1955, the age to collect full social security benefits is age 66.
The average life span for a black male born prior to 1955 is less than 60 years.

For people born after 1959, the age to collect full social security is 67.
The average predicted life span of a black male doesn’t exceed 67 years unless he was born after 1996.
Somehow, I am guessing that the age to collect full social security benefits will be raised before some person born in 1996 actually reaches the current 67 year old age requirement.

The average life expectancy for a black male born in 1970 is 60 years. We can assume that he begins earning income and paying FICA tax at 20 years of age. That means he puts 6.2% of his gross income into the system for 40 years. His employer matches that at 6.2% also. Based upon statistics, the average black male collects nothing from that 40 year contribution.

That’s what I call a zero sum benefit for black men. Had he taken that same 12.4% and stuffed it under his mattress, his wife or children would have it.

Here is a link to the average life expectancy for blacks and whites by gender, just in case you want to see where you fit in. Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930–2007 — Infoplease.com

Thanks for being one of many posters to answer one of many questions I did NOT ask!

You are welcome.
And,
You didn't answer my question either, so I guess that makes us even.

I didn't start this thread to answer YOUR questions shit for brains.

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, you could have just let us manage our money and not stolen it from us to begin with. Then you wouldn't have to worry about "investing" it.

Then what happens when you exchange your savings for goods and services in retirement? Are you telling me that the economy won't have to produce those goods and services - they'll just materialize out of thin air? What happens if you live so long you run out of money? You'll just go back to work I take it? Kill yourself maybe?

What happens to current Social Security beneficiaries when we defund the program by eliminating FICA or divert it into individual retirement accounts? Just, fuck them?

Im not planning to retire. I don't think you stop contributing to life simply because you get alittle older. Unlike you, Im not lazy.

 

[alan1]

Then why do you want to force children to work?

I don't want to force them to work.

Then why did you bring it up?

Want to try and put any more words into my mouth?

As long as you keep putting them in mine, yes.

I merely asked you a question based upon your logic,

If 100,000,000 people have to make enough for 150,000,000 people - then they have to work longer and/or for less than if 100,000,000 people have to make enough only for 125,000,000 people. Its simple math.

I didn't put any words in your mouth.

 

[alan1]

Thanks for being one of many posters to answer one of many questions I did NOT ask!

You are welcome.
And,
You didn't answer my question either, so I guess that makes us even.

I didn't start this thread to answer YOUR questions shit for brains.

I'll take that as an admission that you can longer form a valid defense for your position and thus have to resort to tossing schoolyard style insults.
Whatever makes you feel better :shrug:

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You are welcome.
And,
You didn't answer my question either, so I guess that makes us even.

I didn't start this thread to answer YOUR questions shit for brains.

I'll take that as an admission that you can longer form a valid defense for your position and thus have to resort to tossing schoolyard style insults.
Whatever makes you feel better :shrug:

I didn't take a position, I asked a simple fucking question, of which you are completely incapable of answering - so why not try another thread?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't want to force them to work.

Then why did you bring it up?

As long as you keep putting them in mine, yes.

I merely asked you a question based upon your logic,

If 100,000,000 people have to make enough for 150,000,000 people - then they have to work longer and/or for less than if 100,000,000 people have to make enough only for 125,000,000 people. Its simple math.

I didn't put any words in your mouth.

I missed the part where I suggested children should be forced to work - maybe you can highlight that one for me.

 

[westwall]

Are you not capable of understanding simple English? If I don't have to give my money to the government and am instead able to invest it on my own the government has NO economic burden to support me.

You have answered the question:

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

Very good! But that was not the question I asked, shit for brains! Here it is AGAIN:


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

I suggest you take some business classes and a few economics classes on your way to your physics degree.

I suggest you learn to read!

Your fundamental premise is WRONG. You assume that government SHOULD be responsible for taking of people. You imply that government is smarter then anyone else and should be entrusted with their hard earned cash. I submit that you are wrong and that government has proven itself incapable of doing the job you wish it to do.