Get rid of Social Security now?

[Skull Pilot]

Prove it.


Honestly I don't even know what you're comparing. Social Security isn't a bank savings account. When bank accounts are empty they are empty, yet social security will pay you as long as you live. Its closer to an annuity than a savings account.

Annuities are a sucker's bet.

Money in an annuity always and I do mean always makes more for the company issuing the annuity than the company pays out

Not when the annuity holder lives past a certain age. ON AVERAGE the company makes more than it loses - but then again, if that weren't the case, they wouldn't be selling them, now would they?


BTW

For the 20 years ended December 31st, 2008, equity, fixed income and asset allocation fund investors had average annual returns of 1.87%, .77%, and 1.67% respectively. The inflation rate averaged 2.89% over the same time frame. Did any of these types of accounts make you money on your investments over that 20 year span?

The Real Average Returns of the Stock Market - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Annuities are based on mortality tables and no one knows mortality like an insurance company that issues annuities.

And why would I have money in a fixed income account?

Look at growth and income accounts or bond funds for the same time frame.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Annuities are a sucker's bet.

Money in an annuity always and I do mean always makes more for the company issuing the annuity than the company pays out

Not when the annuity holder lives past a certain age. ON AVERAGE the company makes more than it loses - but then again, if that weren't the case, they wouldn't be selling them, now would they?


BTW

For the 20 years ended December 31st, 2008, equity, fixed income and asset allocation fund investors had average annual returns of 1.87%, .77%, and 1.67% respectively. The inflation rate averaged 2.89% over the same time frame. Did any of these types of accounts make you money on your investments over that 20 year span?

The Real Average Returns of the Stock Market - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Annuities are based on mortality tables and no one knows mortality like an insurance company that issues annuities.

Yeah. All insurance is based on tables like that. They win on the average results of all their clients.

What's your point?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not when the annuity holder lives past a certain age. ON AVERAGE the company makes more than it loses - but then again, if that weren't the case, they wouldn't be selling them, now would they?


BTW


The Real Average Returns of the Stock Market - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Annuities are based on mortality tables and no one knows mortality like an insurance company that issues annuities.

Yeah. All insurance is based on tables like that. They win on the average results of all their clients.

What's your point?

That annuities make more for the insurance coma0ny than they do for their clients so therefore they are a sucker's bet.

If you want to buy an annuity on the slim chance that you'll be the one in million that live long enough to be paid more than the insurance company makes then be my guest. I'll pass on that bet

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Annuities are based on mortality tables and no one knows mortality like an insurance company that issues annuities.

Yeah. All insurance is based on tables like that. They win on the average results of all their clients.

What's your point?

That annuities make more for the insurance coma0ny than they do for their clients so therefore they are a sucker's bet.

When an individual client exceeds life expectancy by more than a little bit he'll make more off the annuity than he put in. But it doesn't cost the insurance company really because its paid for by the clients who didn't make life expectancy and put more in than they got out.

That's kinda the point of the bet. You transfer the risk that you'll live very long and need income far into old age to the insurance company. In exchange, they take a little profit, and if you don't make life expectancy, they keep the difference.

Social Security works the same way. Its not a savings account. Its an insurance program.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah. All insurance is based on tables like that. They win on the average results of all their clients.

What's your point?

That annuities make more for the insurance coma0ny than they do for their clients so therefore they are a sucker's bet.

When an individual client exceeds life expectancy by more than a little bit he'll make more off then annuity than he put in.

Which happens how often?

I'll help you out here

Not fucking very

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That annuities make more for the insurance coma0ny than they do for their clients so therefore they are a sucker's bet.

When an individual client exceeds life expectancy by more than a little bit he'll make more off then annuity than he put in.

Which happens how often?

I'll help you out here

Not fucking very

50% of the clients will live past median life expectancy, 50% won't make it to median life expectancy.

You aren't too smart, are you?

 

[zeke]

You want proof that Americans don't understand finances?

Look at the outflow of money from mutual funds during the financial collapse.

Those folks freaked out, sold at termendous loss and for many they don't have enough time or earnings to recapture what they lost.

Or how about the 401k loans and outright withdrawls going on right now. As people try and suffer through this recession.

They sure will be in great shape when they retire eh?

Bet they are glad they have some social security coming in the future. But you don't think so I take it?

And you know what people that live paycheck to paycheck would do with an extra 7% from not paying SSI withholding? They would spend it. All of it. Good for the future eh?

And after writing mortgage loans for 18 years, I can assure you that the vast number of people that I came into contact with, they had the financial knowledge of an 8th grader. Maybe.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You want proof that Americans don't understand finances?

Look at the outflow of money from mutual funds during the financial collapse.

Those folks freaked out, sold at termendous loss and for many they don't have enough time or earnings to recapture what they lost.

I think its more to do with people needing the cash.

That's the problem with DCA. When the prices are low is when people tend to have smaller incomes.

 

[zeke]

Net worth equals value of assets minus liabilities on assets.


House value 100,000.

Balance of mortgage on house $125,000.

Do the math you stupid fuker. You owe 25,000 more than the value.

And you want to call that "net worth".

Really, how dumb are you.

 

[zeke]

You want proof that Americans don't understand finances?

Look at the outflow of money from mutual funds during the financial collapse.

Those folks freaked out, sold at termendous loss and for many they don't have enough time or earnings to recapture what they lost.

I think its more to do with people needing the cash.

That's the problem with DCA. When the prices are low is when people tend to have smaller incomes.

Not me. What people did is exactly what financial planners caution about all the time.

When the collapse started even I wanted to sell out. Fear is an extremely strong motivator.

Fortunatley I didn't and most funds have come back or exceeded their levels prior to the collapse.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When an individual client exceeds life expectancy by more than a little bit he'll make more off then annuity than he put in.

Which happens how often?

I'll help you out here

Not fucking very

50% of the clients will live past median life expectancy, 50% won't make it to median life expectancy.

You aren't too smart, are you?

You think mortality tables are based solely on the median life expectancy?

Who is not too smart now , Sparky?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Net worth equals value of assets minus liabilities on assets.


House value 100,000.

Balance of mortgage on house $125,000.

Do the math you stupid fuker. You owe 25,000 more than the value.

And you want to call that "net worth".

Really, how dumb are you.

Review the concept of negative numbers you fucking moron. A net worth can indeed be negative just like your fucking IQ

So now answer the fucking question I have been asking you.

If your net worth was -100 and your slightly less retarded brother's net worth was -1, then who would have the higher net worth?

It really isn't a trick question.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You want proof that Americans don't understand finances?

Look at the outflow of money from mutual funds during the financial collapse.

Those folks freaked out, sold at termendous loss and for many they don't have enough time or earnings to recapture what they lost.

Or how about the 401k loans and outright withdrawls going on right now. As people try and suffer through this recession.

They sure will be in great shape when they retire eh?

Bet they are glad they have some social security coming in the future. But you don't think so I take it?

And you know what people that live paycheck to paycheck would do with an extra 7% from not paying SSI withholding? They would spend it. All of it. Good for the future eh?

And after writing mortgage loans for 18 years, I can assure you that the vast number of people that I came into contact with, they had the financial knowledge of an 8th grader. Maybe.

Hey it;'s not my fault you sheep can't handle money.

Why the fuck should I have 15% of my income stolen by corrupt politicians just because you and the rest of the flock are fucking morons?

 

[MikeK]

[...]

And FYI if one is wealthy and has no earned income then one does not pay into SS. In fact I do not pay SS on a large part of my annual earnings because I happen to own my own business.

[...]

If you do in fact own a business why are you so passionately opposed to Social Security -- unless you are resentful about having to contribute to each of your employees' accounts? In which case you have a good reason for promoting this corporatist propaganda, every bit of which is nonsense. The shorthand of your argument is you are greedy and you could care less about your employee's futures. Let them live in poverty as long as you have a nice hoard. And that's what you should be saying instead of resorting to all this convoluted right-wing nonsense.

But whether you really do own a business or if you're just one more acolyte of the right-wing who doesn't have a pot to piss in but likes to parrot the propaganda because it's an escape from your reality, the fact remains that Social Security is a good thing for the ordinary American and it's here to stay in spite of what Rush Limbaugh tells you.

You'll think differently when you reach age fifty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course you can handle your own money any way you want, but when you are part of a mandatory old age insurance program, you don't get to direct how it is used.

If we let the corporatists start handling government SS we are asking for the "sharks" to feed on the people because they will have fees, etc. They will be committed to their profits, not our profits.

Skull got caught in a lie, like you were caught in a situation, for which you paid.

When we let corporate sharks "help" hundreds of millions of Americans "handle" their investments, what the fuck, fuker, do you think is going to happen.

We the People, through our representatives, make such choices, libertarian fuk, for us, so that all of us have some form of income in our old age.

You flat heads are so fucked up.

Who says you have to let a "shark" handle your money? And is a fucking politician any better?

You can handle your own money, buy your own stocks, and not pay anyone to do it for you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

[...]

And FYI if one is wealthy and has no earned income then one does not pay into SS. In fact I do not pay SS on a large part of my annual earnings because I happen to own my own business.

[...]

If you do in fact own a business why are you so passionately opposed to Social Security -- unless you are resentful about having to contribute to each of your employees' accounts? In which case you have a good reason for promoting this corporatist propaganda, every bit of which is nonsense. The shorthand of your argument is you are greedy and you could care less about your employee's futures. Let them live in poverty as long as you have a nice hoard. And that's what you should be saying instead of resorting to all this convoluted right-wing nonsense.

But whether you really do own a business or if you're just one more acolyte of the right-wing who doesn't have a pot to piss in but likes to parrot the propaganda because it's an escape from your reality, the fact remains that Social Security is a good thing for the ordinary American and it's here to stay in spite of what Rush Limbaugh tells you.

You'll think differently when you reach age fifty.

I am opposed to the SS scam because it saps the saving power of the average person,

How many times do I have to tell you that the 15% of your lifetime income that the fucking government confiscates if left in your hands could very well make you a millionaire in retirement?

Why should people settle for a paltry 1200 to 2000 a month from SS when that same money could give you twice that income or more and still allow you to leave a large inheritance to your family?

And I don't mind contributing for my employees because it's the cost of doing business and if you were paying attention you'd see that I am using a 15% figure over and over again. FYI that 15% includes the employers contribution.

And cut the fucking shit with the greedy crap. I allow even my part time employees to contribute to a 401K with a very generous match I might add, oh btw my part time people even get vacation and sick time.

You are the one who wants to have people relinquish 15% of their money to the corrupt assholes in DC so they will never know true financial independence.

And how many times do I have to tell you that I don't listen to pundits because unlike you senile old sheep I am more than capable of thinking for myself.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Of course you can handle your own money any way you want, but when you are part of a mandatory old age insurance program, you don't get to direct how it is used.

If we let the corporatists start handling government SS we are asking for the "sharks" to feed on the people because they will have fees, etc. They will be committed to their profits, not our profits.

Skull got caught in a lie, like you were caught in a situation, for which you paid.

When we let corporate sharks "help" hundreds of millions of Americans "handle" their investments, what the fuck, fuker, do you think is going to happen.

We the People, through our representatives, make such choices, libertarian fuk, for us, so that all of us have some form of income in our old age.

You flat heads are so fucked up.

Who says you have to let a "shark" handle your money? And is a fucking politician any better?

You can handle your own money, buy your own stocks, and not pay anyone to do it for you.

Who said anything about letting corporatists handle anyone's money?

People should decide for themselves what to do with it and it's none of your fucking business.

 

[auditor0007]

Not likely. Well informed young voters realize they won't ever see a cent from SS but they have to pay into it. If Republicans got rid of it(which isn't going to happen) they would welcome it.

Perry was right..it's a Ponzi scheme.

The GOP isn't going anywhere any time soon or in the future.

Raise the retirement age and SS stays funded as long as the US is a nation. The program was not intended to pay out for so many years. With people living longer, we need to shorten the amount of time people receive benefits, or give people and option to take benefits early but at a reduced level.

 

[MikeK]

I am opposed to the SS scam because it saps the saving power of the average person,

How many times do I have to tell you that the 15% of your lifetime income that the fucking government confiscates if left in your hands could very well make you a millionaire in retirement?

Really? Then you are saying everyone presently drawing Social Security could have been millionaires if they had followed some plan you are aware of?

Why should people settle for a paltry 1200 to 2000 a month from SS when that same money could give you twice that income or more and still allow you to leave a large inheritance to your family?

I'm quite content with my financial situation, which includes my Social Security allotment. I've been collecting for over eleven years now and while I've never done the math I believe I've already collected more than I contributed. And if genetics are an indication I should be collecting for another ten or more years -- which is pretty damn good.

And I don't mind contributing for my employees because it's the cost of doing business and if you were paying attention you'd see that I am using a 15% figure over and over again. FYI that 15% includes the employers contribution.

And cut the fucking shit with the greedy crap. I allow even my part time employees to contribute to a 401K with a very generous match I might add, oh btw my part time people even get vacation and sick time.

You are the one who wants to have people relinquish 15% of their money to the corrupt assholes in DC so they will never know true financial independence.

And how many times do I have to tell you that I don't listen to pundits because unlike you senile old sheep I am more than capable of thinking for myself.

At this point I should tell you I think you are basically full of shit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is OUR interest if it is a We the People old age social insurance policy.

You are part of We the People, too, and are bound by it.

No one questions what you do with your own money out of the program.

Of course you can handle your own money any way you want, but when you are part of a mandatory old age insurance program, you don't get to direct how it is used.

If we let the corporatists start handling government SS we are asking for the "sharks" to feed on the people because they will have fees, etc. They will be committed to their profits, not our profits.

Who says you have to let a "shark" handle your money? And is a fucking politician any better?

You can handle your own money, buy your own stocks, and not pay anyone to do it for you.

Who said anything about letting corporatists handle anyone's money?

People should decide for themselves what to do with it and it's none of your fucking business.