If Social Security Had Been In Private Accounts The Stock Market Drop Could Have Been A Disaster

[depotoo]

If they had left it in, how much have they then made back above and beyond? I know ours has grown on average of 22%, even with a 12% fall. We didn't panic.

ww

But YOU don't gamble over 40 years! You invest in equities from your 20s to 40s and obviously accumulations.
There have been MORE UPS that Downs obviously I guess you idiots don't think about that or else THERE would never be a DJI!
Then from your 40s to 60s... moving more from high risk securities to lower risk investments and finally at retirement most of
it in highly secure investments. I mean you being a government lover why not have treasury bills?
See that is why if WE the vast majority of people had been GIVEN the CHOICE see you keep referring to "privatizing" it was always
going to be a CHOICE... i.e. I would have the POWER to choose... Do I want to tell SS where to put my money when I'm in my 20s i.e. high risk great appreciation, then in my 40s tell SS to put in lower risk and then retire all in to secured.. OR if I didn't want to choose that the traditional SS. EITHER WAY I would have the choice. NOT as it is now.
If I'd had the choice when I first started SS deductions in the 60s, today I'd had a million dollars in SS. Of which maybe half would be used in retirement, 1/4 medical bills and the rest a nest egg for my SON and his family to build on!

BUT selfish ignorant people like you without the benefit of the FACTS think privatizing was all investing in the market and that was the stupid ass meme put out by ignorant selfish people!

Typical right wing stupidity and brain washed regurgitation. The stock market IS a gambling casino......The zero-sum syndrome is very applicable...for every "gained" dollar from someone, there is a "lost" dollar by someone else.

Who took it in the gut during this latest stock market plunge? Holders of 401K plans.

I had a 401K plan, and I made money during the plunge. Fail?

Congratulations?
Typical U.S. Worker Saw 401(k) Lose 24.3% in 2008 - BusinessWeek

 

[bripat9643]

If they invested on the day before the drop. Otherwise you're talking out of your ass

LOL. Sure.

You just proved yourself to be ignorant.

You do know about the Texas Opt-Out plan?

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered

In Texas they allowed three specific counties to Opt-Out of Social Security. They invested in the Stock Market, through specific approved investments.

From the article:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.
• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

The bottom line is that in every single instance, despite the ups-and-downs of the market, everyone who Opt-Out of socialist insecurity, did better, and by a wide margin.

This is undeniable fact.

Not only is Social Security going broke, not only does it take up 15% of your income, and not only are benefits going to be cut in the future without any question, but you would be better off investing your money in any conventional stock market investment.

Yes, yes, cite 3 counties in texas.

So evidence has been presented, which you can't refute. Anything else you'd like to not add to the conversation? Or are you done here?

Regardless, you're misunderstanding, well, the entire point of SS.

At the time these plans were created, it was claimed that this type of arrangement would generate higher overall returns for retirees. In reality, the vast majority of workers have fared worse than under traditional Social Security. Compared with Social Security, the Galveston plan disproportionally benefits high earners with many years of participation in the plan and no dependents, and exposes all retirees to risks arising from inflation and swings of the stock market. Moreover, because even plan participants can earn benefits under Social Security with 40 quarters of coverage in employment covered by Social Security, many plan participants gain Social Security’s cornerstone protection, even though covered by the Galveston for most of their work lives. For this and reasons described below, the Galveston plan is simply not a viable alternative to a national Social Security system.

Social Security and the Galveston plan do not share the same goals: Social Security is wage insurance that provides basic protection against loss of income resulting from retirement, disability or death of a worker; it is not intended to be a wealth-maximizing vehicle. Social Security’s aims at providing a measure of economic security and a guarantee of lifetime benefits for workers that have contributed to the system. Though Social Security funds could be invested in equities, Congress has decided that those funds should be kept in the world’s safest and most reliable investment, U.S. Treasury bonds. In contrast, supporters of the Galveston plan see that plan as a way to build personal savings, and some view it as a means of “maximizing returns” in the market. Its funds are invested in fixed-rate marketable securities.

Women and low-income workers are not well served by the plan. Since the Galveston Plan's retirement benefits are based on what workers accumulate in their accounts during their term of county employment, low-wage workers lose the benefit of the progressivity in the Social Security benefit formula which provides proportionately larger benefits to those working for many years at low wages. Women and others who are likely to be intermittent or short-term employees often earn cumulatively less and would also lose important Social Security coverage. Unlike the Galveston plan, their Social Security work history stays with them as they move from job to job. Moreover, the plan does not require spouses to select a joint survivor annuity. And, unlike Social Security, there are no spousal benefits and there are no guaranteed benefits for divorced spouses.

·Substantial inflation risks appear with the Galveston plan. Inflation significantly erodes Galveston’s retirement, disability, and survivor’s benefits since the plan does not include annuities that are indexed to inflation. A Pension Research Council report noted that Galveston plan benefits could lose 46 percent of their purchasing power after 20 years, with yearly inflation averaging three percent. This threatens the purchasing power of benefits for seniors as time passes, when the adequacy of benefits is most important.

nder the Galveston plan, workers are subject to fluctuations of the stock market. Even though Galveston funds are invested conservatively, they still carry substantially more risk to workers and their families than traditional Social Security. One study has shown that a typical worker with a partial private Social Security account retiring in 2008 would actually have seen a negative net annual rate of return from his investments because of the recession – and lost $26,000 through the market. Market-based plans leave retirees vulnerable to the winds of economic fortunes at the time they retire; by contrast, Social Security provides benefits that are protected from both inflation and economic downturns.

The purpose of Social Security was to loot taxpayers so politicians could dispense the proceeds to ticks on the ass of society and thereby buy their votes.

 

[boedicca]

The OP is spewing nonsense.

Over a lifetime a properly BALANCED portfolio will yield far better returns than the Fed's phony b'loney lockbox. The typical pattern after a correction is that portfolios recover in 4 months.

SS for truly indigent people is WELFARE. It would be far better for the vast majority to control their own retirement investments (similar to the program in Chile), while reserving a WELFARE program for destitute seniors. Having personally owned accounts would result in LESS DESTITUTE seniors. There is the added benefit that the accounts could be passed along to heirs instead of squandered by the government on crap.

 

[bripat9643]

You act like conservatives would care about seniors when they can't work.

It's about a 54 year old father of 4 who did everything he was supposed to do according to conservatives: go to college, earn a degree, start a rewarding career, invest and save for retirement – only to lose his job through no fault of his own as a consequence of the December 2007 Recession, along with his life's savings.

Lies. You are lying.

No, he's not lying, also:
Galveston | Strengthen Social Security

Really..... so you go to a web site called "strengthensocialsecurity.org" and think that's an unbiased source for anything?

Social Security Works
815 16th St NW Fourth Floor
Washington, DC 20006

You just cited a Washington DC special interest group that lobbies government for more money.

Yeah, that's a 'trusted' source of information. And the cite is wrong. I could go through it line by line, but it's a BS lobby group. If you believe that, then you'll believe anything.

Hey, why don't you actually listen to the information I've given you? SS isn't supposed to be a system to increase personal wealth, it's protection.

Wrong. It's a scam to loot the wealth of the American people.

 

[boedicca]

The purpose of Social Security was to loot taxpayers so politicians could dispense the proceeds to ticks on the ass of society and thereby buy their votes.

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!

 

[David_42]

The OP is spewing nonsense.

Over a lifetime a properly BALANCED portfolio will yield far better returns than the Fed's phony b'loney lockbox. The typical pattern after a correction is that portfolios recover in 4 months.

SS for truly indigent people is WELFARE. It would be far better for the vast majority to control their own retirement investments (similar to the program in Chile), while reserving a WELFARE program for destitute seniors. Having personally owned accounts would result in LESS DESTITUTE seniors. There is the added benefit that the accounts could be passed along to heirs instead of squandered by the government on crap.

You assume everyone would balance a portfolio properly.

 

[bripat9643]

Really..... so you go to a web site called "strengthensocialsecurity.org" and think that's an unbiased source for anything?

Social Security Works
815 16th St NW Fourth Floor
Washington, DC 20006

You just cited a Washington DC special interest group that lobbies government for more money.

Yeah, that's a 'trusted' source of information. And the cite is wrong. I could go through it line by line, but it's a BS lobby group. If you believe that, then you'll believe anything.

Hey, why don't you actually listen to the information I've given you? SS isn't supposed to be a system to increase personal wealth, it's protection.

$1,200 a month, isn't protecting anyone from anything.

You'd have more "protection" having real investments in your name, making real money.

What are you protecting? Protecting elderly people from getting out of poverty? Protecting your democrat voter base, from getting wealthy and not voting democrat again?

You're starting to begin the usual stuff I'm used to. More protection? Investments are risky, and the market changes constantly, social security is a safe guard, and partnered with other federal aid programs, helps seniors. That's the entire point. You want elderly people to manage investments like some sort of sick joke.

Right, and you are claiming that having impoverished wages, is "protecting them"? From what? Being wealthy? Good job.

No, we don't expect anyone to manage their investments. I don't manage my investments. I hire mutual funds, and invest there. They manage the investments. I just pick the mutual funds that do a good job, and have a long track record.

It doesn't take a genius to do that. And I don't expect people who are already elderly to do anything. You already screwed those poor people over completely. They are ruined because of you, and they have no choice but to simply live out the rest of their live in poverty, thanks to you.

I'm trying to warn the next generation, don't follow the left wing scum that forced the elder into that impoverishment.

I can't believe you actually believe what you're typing. Impoverished wages? Seriously? Seniors suffered before social security, and I think it's hilarious how you want to make safeguarding seniors a fight over running with funds that can be "trusted" when all of this is unstable and just plain ridiculous.

Really? Where is the evidence for that claim? How does looting people their entire lives help them in their old age?

 

[boedicca]

The OP is spewing nonsense.

Over a lifetime a properly BALANCED portfolio will yield far better returns than the Fed's phony b'loney lockbox. The typical pattern after a correction is that portfolios recover in 4 months.

SS for truly indigent people is WELFARE. It would be far better for the vast majority to control their own retirement investments (similar to the program in Chile), while reserving a WELFARE program for destitute seniors. Having personally owned accounts would result in LESS DESTITUTE seniors. There is the added benefit that the accounts could be passed along to heirs instead of squandered by the government on crap.

You assume everyone would balance a portfolio properly.

I assume that the majority of people are perfectly capable of handling their own affairs. There are tons of resources on the internet and elsewhere that provide guidance for balancing one's investments based on goals, risk tolerance, age etc.

I also assume that an individual will in almost all circumstances make better decisions for his own personal situation than some faceless and unaccountable political appointee sitting in Washington DC. History has proven me right time and time again.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, no shit.
If Social Security Had Been In Private Accounts The Stock Market Drop Could Have Been A Disaster

The stock market continued a period of volatility on Monday. Media reports sounded the alarm as the DOW opened 1,000 points down and other indexes took huge hits, only to climb back up a bit later in the day. While that performance, which had some people calling it black Monday, may have knocked a good deal of money out of people’s 401(k) retirement accounts, Social Security benefits remain by and large untouched by such fluctuations.

Some Republicans, however, are interested in changing that.

In June, presidential candidate Jeb Bush said that he thinks the next president will have to try to privatize Social Security. Others have gotten behind the idea as well: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) drafted a plan in 2013 that included partial privatization, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is in favor of using private accounts. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has included privatization in his budget blueprints.

The market drop, and ones before, expose the dangers of such a plan, which usually entails diverting some or all of the money workers contribute to Social Security through their paychecks into private investment accounts. That would put individuals in charge of making smart enough investment choices in the market to make big enough returns to support themselves in retirement.

But the reality is that’s not within reach for most individual people. During a market rout like Monday’s, many people will panic and sell. “We know a lot of people do what economists say is irrational, they sell at a low point,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center on Economic and Policy Research. Research shows that the best thing to do during a downturn is to hold out if possible. But that’s not how most people will react. “People see something like this and go, ‘I better get out,'” Baker said. “When they see the market start to go up, they say, ‘I better buy in,’ and then they’ve lost a lot.”

This is one of the big problems with privatizing Social Security: individual investors don’t tend to be that savvy in chasing higher returns. “A lot of people make wrong decisions,” Baker said. This is even true when it comes to retirement planning: Many people leave money on the table with their 401(k)s by not taking advantage of employer matches or cash out when they switch jobs and incur taxes. The point of Social Security contributions is to make saving for retirement mandatory, he pointed out. But “if you do that and then just tell people to do whatever you want [with the money], then a lot of people will make mistakes and end up with not very much in retirement.”

On a larger level, putting people’s Social Security contributions into private accounts makes them far more exposed to the irrationality of the market. “What’s beautiful about Social Security is that in the long the return workers get on contributions is linked to productivity growth and wage growth,” said Monique Morrissey, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute. “Whereas markets are notoriously volatile and often behave in ways that are not based on the fundamental strength and weakness of the economy.”

The question is actually simple....Should one GAMBLE with one's "nest egg" in retirement years, knowing that if the gamble does NOT pay off, one is royally screwed?

On the other hand, regarding elected right wingers who are clamoring for SS's privatization, the questions should be....are they THAT dumb, or are they thoroughly bribed by Wall Street bankers?

If you put the whole thing in treasury bonds, you would still get a better retirement that SS provides.

 

[healthmyths]

Spamming more from a special interest Washington DC lobbyist group.....

Not an argument, and most of what they say is wrong.

For example, yes it is subject to fluctuations of the market. Fact: over the 30 year period, they have made substantially more than Social Security, as the numbers I posted prove.

Good, ignore inflation risk, the fact it doesn't serve low income people well, and the fact that it isn't based on being basic protection.

That's a lie. Sorry, you lied.... again.

A low income person, making just $15,000 a year, will put into Social Security, over $174 a month into Social Security. For that money, they will earn at retirement $800 a month.

Impoverishment for the rest of their life.

If you take that same amount, $174 a month, and place it into an average growth stock mutual fund, or set of mutual funds, they will have $400,000 to $600,000. Enough for a comfortable basic living. By far better than $800 a month.

Now which plan, the left-wing social security plan, or the right-wing capitalist plan, is better for the impoverished?

By far, ours is.

Oh dear lord, see, this is the funny thing, social security is a safe guard, you want people to put shit into mutual funds which are unstable, and make ridiculous assumptions. You want seniors and people not very educated in the workings of investment and the complexities to attempt to do the stupid bullshit you're proposing. How many seniors on social security vote republican, and how many vote democrat? Social security is complemented by programs like food stamps, medicaid, medicare, etc.. Of course, you probably want to trash those to. Luckily, your views are so out of touch with reality they're meaningless to actual political discussion.

Again, you are the one making assumptions. You already ruined the lives of the elderly. They are doomed to impoverishment until they die. You screwed the hell out of them, and they are finished. There is no solution for them. They just live and die, in social impoverishment that you gave them.

It's the next generation I'm trying to help.

And unlike your brainless screwball claims, my mutual funds have done fantastic. Huge returns on my investment. You can't stand that? Fine. Stay poor. But don't be surprised if I convince as many as possible to join me in making money for retirement.

If you actually owned any mutual funds you would know what a disaster they were when Republican deregulation brought down the economy in 2008-9. I bet you can't even explain what they are.

I bet you don't know how to use the internet as I do and I've just shown the ignorance of your statement!

At the end of 2013, there were over 15,000 mutual funds in the United States with combined assets of $17 trillion, according to the Investment Company Institute (ICI), a trade association of U.S. investment companies. The ICI reports that worldwide mutual fund assets were $30 trillion on the same date.[11]
By 1970, there were approximately 360 funds with $48 billion in assets.[8]
Mutual fund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Zander]

People that are retiring now are 62 years old minimum.

If they made an investment $1000 per year in the S&P 500 (in a tax deferred account with dividends reinvested) starting at age 21 years old - they'd have $835,000. That could be converted to an immediate annuity and pay out $50,000 per year for the rest of their life. The average Social Security benefit at age 62 is $15,000 per year. Which would you prefer?

Leave it to democrats to demonize capitalism.....

 

[boedicca]

People that are retiring now are 62 years old minimum.

If they made an investment $1000 per year in the S&P 500 (in a tax deferred account with dividends reinvested) starting at age 21 years old - they'd have $835,000. That could be converted to an immediate annuity and pay out $50,000 per year for the rest of their life. The average Social Security benefit at age 62 is $15,000 per year. Which would you prefer?

Leave it to democrats to demonize capitalism.....

You really have to feel sorry for them.

MATH IS HARD!

 

[bripat9643]

Spamming more from a special interest Washington DC lobbyist group.....

Not an argument, and most of what they say is wrong.

For example, yes it is subject to fluctuations of the market. Fact: over the 30 year period, they have made substantially more than Social Security, as the numbers I posted prove.

Good, ignore inflation risk, the fact it doesn't serve low income people well, and the fact that it isn't based on being basic protection.

That's a lie. Sorry, you lied.... again.

A low income person, making just $15,000 a year, will put into Social Security, over $174 a month into Social Security. For that money, they will earn at retirement $800 a month.

Impoverishment for the rest of their life.

If you take that same amount, $174 a month, and place it into an average growth stock mutual fund, or set of mutual funds, they will have $400,000 to $600,000. Enough for a comfortable basic living. By far better than $800 a month.

Now which plan, the left-wing social security plan, or the right-wing capitalist plan, is better for the impoverished?

By far, ours is.

Oh dear lord, see, this is the funny thing, social security is a safe guard, you want people to put shit into mutual funds which are unstable, and make ridiculous assumptions. You want seniors and people not very educated in the workings of investment and the complexities to attempt to do the stupid bullshit you're proposing. How many seniors on social security vote republican, and how many vote democrat? Social security is complemented by programs like food stamps, medicaid, medicare, etc.. Of course, you probably want to trash those to. Luckily, your views are so out of touch with reality they're meaningless to actual political discussion.

Again, you are the one making assumptions. You already ruined the lives of the elderly. They are doomed to impoverishment until they die. You screwed the hell out of them, and they are finished. There is no solution for them. They just live and die, in social impoverishment that you gave them.

It's the next generation I'm trying to help.

And unlike your brainless screwball claims, my mutual funds have done fantastic. Huge returns on my investment. You can't stand that? Fine. Stay poor. But don't be surprised if I convince as many as possible to join me in making money for retirement.

If you actually owned any mutual funds you would know what a disaster they were when Republican deregulation brought down the economy in 2008-9. I bet you can't even explain what they are.

They were 100 times a better deal with Social Security. The government has spent every dime of the money you paid into SS.

 

[Flash]

"
Right now, Social Security provides a guaranteed income, paying benefits every month for life, with increases for inflation. After adjusting for risk, Social Security has a rate of return equal to that of any mix of financial assets in private accounts.


And risk must be taken into account, because stock market returns are never guaranteed! As we've seen in recent years, returns can fluctuate wildly. One need only be reminded that between 2001 and 2003, the NASDAQ lost 75% of its value. And the market took a major downturn again in 2008. Nest eggs can disappear in an instant - and take months, if not years, to rebuild.


With privatization, some might do well, many might lose - but our society would lose the benefit of the sound, basic income security provided by Social Security retirement, disability and survivor benefits.
"

There is nothing "guaranteed" under Social Security.

If you think the government can guarantee anything just look at Greece. When the fund starts going bankrupt, as it will with a $56 trillion future liability, the government won't to be able to live up to its commitment. The bastards have already spent the money on welfare and interventionism. There isn't enough of money coming in from present workers to cover the cost of the people getting the pensions and the bloated friggin disability payments.

None of us needs the filthy government taking our money by force and promising to give it back one day, maybe. Only an idiot would want that.

The government needs to stay out of the business of being a nanny to us because at the end of the day the filthy ass government is managed by a bunch of corrupt and incompetent politicians elected by special interest groups.

 

[boedicca]

Good, ignore inflation risk, the fact it doesn't serve low income people well, and the fact that it isn't based on being basic protection.

That's a lie. Sorry, you lied.... again.

A low income person, making just $15,000 a year, will put into Social Security, over $174 a month into Social Security. For that money, they will earn at retirement $800 a month.

Impoverishment for the rest of their life.

If you take that same amount, $174 a month, and place it into an average growth stock mutual fund, or set of mutual funds, they will have $400,000 to $600,000. Enough for a comfortable basic living. By far better than $800 a month.

Now which plan, the left-wing social security plan, or the right-wing capitalist plan, is better for the impoverished?

By far, ours is.

Oh dear lord, see, this is the funny thing, social security is a safe guard, you want people to put shit into mutual funds which are unstable, and make ridiculous assumptions. You want seniors and people not very educated in the workings of investment and the complexities to attempt to do the stupid bullshit you're proposing. How many seniors on social security vote republican, and how many vote democrat? Social security is complemented by programs like food stamps, medicaid, medicare, etc.. Of course, you probably want to trash those to. Luckily, your views are so out of touch with reality they're meaningless to actual political discussion.

Again, you are the one making assumptions. You already ruined the lives of the elderly. They are doomed to impoverishment until they die. You screwed the hell out of them, and they are finished. There is no solution for them. They just live and die, in social impoverishment that you gave them.

It's the next generation I'm trying to help.

And unlike your brainless screwball claims, my mutual funds have done fantastic. Huge returns on my investment. You can't stand that? Fine. Stay poor. But don't be surprised if I convince as many as possible to join me in making money for retirement.

If you actually owned any mutual funds you would know what a disaster they were when Republican deregulation brought down the economy in 2008-9. I bet you can't even explain what they are.

They were 100 times a better deal with Social Security. The government has spent every dime of the money you paid into SS.

But but but....Lockbox and BECAUSE EQUALITY!

 

[Andylusion]

"
Right now, Social Security provides a guaranteed income, paying benefits every month for life, with increases for inflation. After adjusting for risk, Social Security has a rate of return equal to that of any mix of financial assets in private accounts.


And risk must be taken into account, because stock market returns are never guaranteed! As we've seen in recent years, returns can fluctuate wildly. One need only be reminded that between 2001 and 2003, the NASDAQ lost 75% of its value. And the market took a major downturn again in 2008. Nest eggs can disappear in an instant - and take months, if not years, to rebuild.


With privatization, some might do well, many might lose - but our society would lose the benefit of the sound, basic income security provided by Social Security retirement, disability and survivor benefits.
"

First off, there is no "guarantee". The system *IS* going broke. At some point you *WILL* have to cut benefits.

If you don't.... Then all you have to do is look at Greece, and you can see where that path leads. Benefits have been cut by 40%.

And by the way.... sure Social Security provide "an income"... but it's terrible. Absolutely horrible income. $1,200 a month is poverty. And that's the average. Half get less than $1,200 a month.

The only real guarantee social security provides, is a guarantee of impoverishment.

But here's the deal.... If you are worried about people losing money.... ok.... here's a solution.

Allow people to choose where to put their own money. Among the hundreds of options, let one of those options be Government Bonds.

So if you want to give your money to the government, so you can have your guaranteed impoverishment... great! There you go! You can have all your money in government bonds, earning 0.1% interest, and die in poverty, living in the security of your guaranteed poverty income.

That way the rest of us, can have our money in real investments, and make substantial returns, and not live in poverty.

See, here's the real difference between you and me. I want the best possible outcome for the most people.

You would rather everyone be poor. That's why when given an option that allows people freedom to be more wealthy, even if it wouldn't harm the poor at all, you can't stand it. You'd rather doom everyone to poverty.

 

[boedicca]

"
Right now, Social Security provides a guaranteed income, paying benefits every month for life, with increases for inflation. After adjusting for risk, Social Security has a rate of return equal to that of any mix of financial assets in private accounts.


And risk must be taken into account, because stock market returns are never guaranteed! As we've seen in recent years, returns can fluctuate wildly. One need only be reminded that between 2001 and 2003, the NASDAQ lost 75% of its value. And the market took a major downturn again in 2008. Nest eggs can disappear in an instant - and take months, if not years, to rebuild.


With privatization, some might do well, many might lose - but our society would lose the benefit of the sound, basic income security provided by Social Security retirement, disability and survivor benefits.
"

First off, there is no "guarantee". The system *IS* going broke. At some point you *WILL* have to cut benefits.

If you don't.... Then all you have to do is look at Greece, and you can see where that path leads. Benefits have been cut by 40%.

And by the way.... sure Social Security provide "an income"... but it's terrible. Absolutely horrible income. $1,200 a month is poverty. And that's the average. Half get less than $1,200 a month.

The only real guarantee social security provides, is a guarantee of impoverishment.

But here's the deal.... If you are worried about people losing money.... ok.... here's a solution.

Allow people to choose where to put their own money. Among the hundreds of options, let one of those options be Government Bonds.

So if you want to give your money to the government, so you can have your guaranteed impoverishment... great! There you go! You can have all your money in government bonds, earning 0.1% interest, and die in poverty, living in the security of your guaranteed poverty income.

That way the rest of us, can have our money in real investments, and make substantial returns, and not live in poverty.

See, here's the real difference between you and me. I want the best possible outcome for the most people.

You would rather everyone be poor. That's why when given an option that allows people freedom to be more wealthy, even if it wouldn't harm the poor at all, you can't stand it. You'd rather doom everyone to poverty.

Indeed. Two objectives of SS are to keep seniors equally poor and dependent on the Government.

 

[Andylusion]

The OP is spewing nonsense.

Over a lifetime a properly BALANCED portfolio will yield far better returns than the Fed's phony b'loney lockbox. The typical pattern after a correction is that portfolios recover in 4 months.

SS for truly indigent people is WELFARE. It would be far better for the vast majority to control their own retirement investments (similar to the program in Chile), while reserving a WELFARE program for destitute seniors. Having personally owned accounts would result in LESS DESTITUTE seniors. There is the added benefit that the accounts could be passed along to heirs instead of squandered by the government on crap.

You assume everyone would balance a portfolio properly.

Good grief..... .Then that is THEIR fault.

Why should arrogant people like you, punish people like us, because someone somewhere might not invest wisely?

You would never apply that to any other situation. Someone might not drive their car safely and wisely, and may hurt someone. We should ban people from having cars. No one has a car, no one will run anyone else over.

Absolute stupidity.

And it's not like investing wisely is super difficult. Look at how long the mutual fund has been open. 1 year.... skip it. 10 years or longer... ok.

Look at what the average return on the investment was over the last 10 to 20 years. -2.8%... that's bad. Skip it.
6.8% growth... that's good. Ok.

Which part of this is so freaking difficult that you left-winger can't possibly do it on your own? Which of these concepts do you need a government funded college course to help you with?

 

[healthmyths]

But YOU don't gamble over 40 years! You invest in equities from your 20s to 40s and obviously accumulations.
There have been MORE UPS that Downs obviously I guess you idiots don't think about that or else THERE would never be a DJI!
Then from your 40s to 60s... moving more from high risk securities to lower risk investments and finally at retirement most of
it in highly secure investments. I mean you being a government lover why not have treasury bills?
See that is why if WE the vast majority of people had been GIVEN the CHOICE see you keep referring to "privatizing" it was always
going to be a CHOICE... i.e. I would have the POWER to choose... Do I want to tell SS where to put my money when I'm in my 20s i.e. high risk great appreciation, then in my 40s tell SS to put in lower risk and then retire all in to secured.. OR if I didn't want to choose that the traditional SS. EITHER WAY I would have the choice. NOT as it is now.
If I'd had the choice when I first started SS deductions in the 60s, today I'd had a million dollars in SS. Of which maybe half would be used in retirement, 1/4 medical bills and the rest a nest egg for my SON and his family to build on!

BUT selfish ignorant people like you without the benefit of the FACTS think privatizing was all investing in the market and that was the stupid ass meme put out by ignorant selfish people!

Typical right wing stupidity and brain washed regurgitation. The stock market IS a gambling casino......The zero-sum syndrome is very applicable...for every "gained" dollar from someone, there is a "lost" dollar by someone else.

Who took it in the gut during this latest stock market plunge? Holders of 401K plans.

Explain something.
How come there are more periods when the market goes up then when goes down if it is a "casino"???
So in case you can't figure it out... when over the last 115 years the DJIA has gone up more then going down why is that wrong?

Long-Term DJIA, Transports, S&P500, And Nasdaq Charts

 

[boedicca]

The OP is spewing nonsense.

Over a lifetime a properly BALANCED portfolio will yield far better returns than the Fed's phony b'loney lockbox. The typical pattern after a correction is that portfolios recover in 4 months.

SS for truly indigent people is WELFARE. It would be far better for the vast majority to control their own retirement investments (similar to the program in Chile), while reserving a WELFARE program for destitute seniors. Having personally owned accounts would result in LESS DESTITUTE seniors. There is the added benefit that the accounts could be passed along to heirs instead of squandered by the government on crap.

You assume everyone would balance a portfolio properly.

Good grief..... .Then that is THEIR fault.

Why should arrogant people like you, punish people like us, because someone somewhere might not invest wisely?

You would never apply that to any other situation. Someone might not drive their car safely and wisely, and may hurt someone. We should ban people from having cars. No one has a car, no one will run anyone else over.

Absolute stupidity.

And it's not like investing wisely is super difficult. Look at how long the mutual fund has been open. 1 year.... skip it. 10 years or longer... ok.

Look at what the average return on the investment was over the last 10 to 20 years. -2.8%... that's bad. Skip it.
6.8% growth... that's good. Ok.

Which part of this is so freaking difficult that you left-winger can't possibly do it on your own? Which of these concepts do you need a government funded college course to help you with?

Actually, the moronic OP's ideology does support preventing people from making tons of personal decisions ranging from what the ingest...to where they live...to the features their care has to have...to what benefits their health care should provide...and on and one.

He's a Nanny Stater.