Good thing they're not in charge of Social Security

[Luddly Neddite]

Ina Drew, JPMorgan Chase CIO, Retires Amid Huge Trading Loss

If the R's get their way, the average investor could lose every cent while the ultra wealthy hardly notice. Even though Drew is retiring in shame, this will not affect her lifestyle in any appreciable way.

 

[Truthmatters]

how anyone can suggest privatizing SS in light of the performance of the private sector has displayed is amzing

 

[Ernie S.]

how anyone can suggest privatizing SS in light of the performance of the private sector has displayed is amzing

Consider someone who has averaged a 50K/year salary for 40 years and has saved 10%. (about the current total contribution to Social Security)
He would currently, using a conservative rate of return of 5%, have roughly $660,000 saved. He could withdraw $31,000/year and never touch the principal.
Now look at the poor schlep who stayed in the government controlled plan. He will pull down a bit under $20K/year and have no principal to leave his heirs and no savings for an emergency.
Sure, the market goes up and down, but the long term trend is always up.

 

[Toro]

Ina Drew, JPMorgan Chase CIO, Retires Amid Huge Trading Loss

If the R's get their way, the average investor could lose every cent while the ultra wealthy hardly notice. Even though Drew is retiring in shame, this will not affect her lifestyle in any appreciable way.

This is ridiculous.

 

[Toro]

how anyone can suggest privatizing SS in light of the performance of the private sector has displayed is amzing

Because the performance - the performance, not the funding - of almost every single pension fund has been better than SS over long periods of time.

Why?

Because over long periods of time, stocks do better than bonds.

$100 million invested in bonds earning 4% is $460 million after 50 years. $100 million invested in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds earning 8% is $4.6 billion in 50 years.

You will do much, much better investing in stocks over the next 10, 20, 50 years than investing in government bonds, which is what SS does.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Many GOP are not for privatization of any part of SS.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SocSecurity is already broke, Obama admitted it in August

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, he did not. But your brain is broke, Frank.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Broke is when the government has to borrow to pay current obligations to SS, there are no assets in the Trust Fund to sell.

That's how broke it is

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is so broke that all the government has to do, beginning right now, is deposit the SS taxes into the fund, and the problem is resolved.

 

[starcraftzzz]

how anyone can suggest privatizing SS in light of the performance of the private sector has displayed is amzing

Consider someone who has averaged a 50K/year salary for 40 years and has saved 10%. (about the current total contribution to Social Security)
He would currently, using a conservative rate of return of 5%, have roughly $660,000 saved. He could withdraw $31,000/year and never touch the principal.
Now look at the poor schlep who stayed in the government controlled plan. He will pull down a bit under $20K/year and have no principal to leave his heirs and no savings for an emergency.
Sure, the market goes up and down, but the long term trend is always up.

http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf
^Privatized SS in Chile and UK resulted in administration cost increasing by 13-20 times.

You’re in good hands with Social Security: But Privatization Proposals Would Unravel Its Ability to Insure Against Loss of Income, Disability, and Death | Economic Policy Institute
^SS keeps 39% of the elderly out of poverty
^SS returns are 26% higher than private alternatives

Yes the longterm ternd is always up but if we privitized SS it would result in the amount of benifits being around 20% less

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, you just drove the privatizers off the board.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, you just drove the privatizers off the board.

Like a fart in a crowded room.
Here's their mission:

EPI believes every working person deserves a good job with fair pay, affordable health care, and retirement security.

IOW we're dealing with the progressive agenda.
In any case, who cares what admin costs are? The result is net returns. And net returns for private sector investment are far greater than social security provides.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Ina Drew, JPMorgan Chase CIO, Retires Amid Huge Trading Loss

If the R's get their way, the average investor could lose every cent while the ultra wealthy hardly notice. Even though Drew is retiring in shame, this will not affect her lifestyle in any appreciable way.

It already happened kiddo.
It is called 401k.
Also - it will happen again junior - Social Security WILL run out of money in less than 20 years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is so broke that all the government has to do, beginning right now, is deposit the SS taxes into the fund, and the problem is resolved.

We have a current annual deficit of $1.3 Trillion. You're so busy pretending to be a Republican you forgot to keep up on current events

And Obama is accelerating the collapse by CUTTING FICA

 

[Truthseeker420]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HowQENh5qho]In 1936, FDR warned the country about Republican chicaneries (restored) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In 1936, FDR warned the country about Republican chicaneries (restored) - YouTube

LOL FDR

LOL

FDR Responsible for the worst economy in human history, worse that the 7 Biblical lean years. The only thing that rescued the US economy from FDR was Hitler.

FDR

LOL

 

[Mr Natural]

In 1936, FDR warned the country about Republican chicaneries (restored) - YouTube

LOL FDR

LOL

FDR Responsible for the worst economy in human history, worse that the 7 Biblical lean years. The only thing that rescued the US economy from FDR was Hitler.

FDR

LOL

Yeah, Hitler and the massive government spending program that followed.

 

[editec]

how anyone can suggest privatizing SS in light of the performance of the private sector has displayed is amzing

Consider someone who has averaged a 50K/year salary for 40 years and has saved 10%. (about the current total contribution to Social Security)

The person who makes $50K and saves $5,000 a year is a rare American indeed. He is probably living at home, and unmarried.



He would currently, using a conservative rate of return of 5%,

That's not remotely a "concerstaive ROI. That is actually a high ROI over a 40 years period. VERY high, actually

have roughly $660,000 saved. He could withdraw $31,000/year and never touch the principal.

Yeah? Show me where he's going to get a 5% return on his savings. My bank is currently paying 1/50th that interest rate on regular savings.

You might squeek out a 2.5% rate if you buy very longer term bonds.

So lets see...your plan works but not in THIS universe.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And net returns for private sector investment are far greater than social security provides.

Do you have historical contexts for that statement? If so, post them.