Privatize % of SS ?

[DaGoose]

I've already said we require it just like we do now. We require employers to match just like we do now. the only difference is you keep ownership of the funds in the hands of the people not the fucking government.

But the government doesn't want people to be wealthy or financially independent it wants us to be dependent on it and even more so it wants the off the books slush fund that SS taxes provide.

If the government does not have S.S. taxes, 53 million people that get checks would stop receiving them in a few years. You can be sure that's not going to happen. The government would either borrow or tax to continue the benefit. Not a good solution.

Taking the hit to pay the current obligations will be less expensive than continuing the scam.

And the chances of it not continuing are about......zilch. So give it up.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If the government does not have S.S. taxes, 53 million people that get checks would stop receiving them in a few years. You can be sure that's not going to happen. The government would either borrow or tax to continue the benefit. Not a good solution.

Taking the hit to pay the current obligations will be less expensive than continuing the scam.

And the chances of it not continuing are about......zilch. So give it up.

you'd like that wouldn't you.

as long as i have a vote I will pursue the dissolution of the government scam called Social Security.

I refuse to be a sheep like you.

 

[Flopper]

I've already said we require it just like we do now. We require employers to match just like we do now. the only difference is you keep ownership of the funds in the hands of the people not the fucking government.

But the government doesn't want people to be wealthy or financially independent it wants us to be dependent on it and even more so it wants the off the books slush fund that SS taxes provide.

If the government does not have S.S. taxes, 53 million people that get checks would stop receiving them in a few years. You can be sure that's not going to happen. The government would either borrow or tax to continue the benefit. Not a good solution.

Taking the hit to pay the current obligations will be less expensive than continuing the scam.

It would be virtually impossible to abolish S.S. because 1/3 of the adults in the US are either on S.S. or will be within 20 years plus over 70% of the people believe it is a good program.

But assume it could be phased out over say the next 50 years how would that benefit the nation?

 

[Skull Pilot]

If the government does not have S.S. taxes, 53 million people that get checks would stop receiving them in a few years. You can be sure that's not going to happen. The government would either borrow or tax to continue the benefit. Not a good solution.

Taking the hit to pay the current obligations will be less expensive than continuing the scam.

It would be virtually impossible to abolish S.S. because 1/3 of the adults in the US are either on S.S. or will be within 20 years plus over 70% of the people believe it is a good program.

But assume it could be phased out over say the next 50 years how would that benefit the nation?

You could give people under the age of 50 the option of taking what they put in in one lump sum. Anyone collecting now would continue to receive benefits until they die.

And where have you been? I've shown several times how if contributions and matching stayed at the same levels as the past 20 years but each account was privately owned that people would have substantially higher incomes in retirement and most likely be able to leave a lot of money to their heirs (assuming the government doesn't steal that via the death tax)

 

[asterism]

If the government does not have S.S. taxes, 53 million people that get checks would stop receiving them in a few years. You can be sure that's not going to happen. The government would either borrow or tax to continue the benefit. Not a good solution.

Taking the hit to pay the current obligations will be less expensive than continuing the scam.

It would be virtually impossible to abolish S.S. because 1/3 of the adults in the US are either on S.S. or will be within 20 years plus over 70% of the people believe it is a good program.

But assume it could be phased out over say the next 50 years how would that benefit the nation?

It would provide the justification to properly fund a senior welfare program while removing the opportunity cost.

 

[Flopper]

Taking the hit to pay the current obligations will be less expensive than continuing the scam.

It would be virtually impossible to abolish S.S. because 1/3 of the adults in the US are either on S.S. or will be within 20 years plus over 70% of the people believe it is a good program.

But assume it could be phased out over say the next 50 years how would that benefit the nation?

You could give people under the age of 50 the option of taking what they put in in one lump sum. Anyone collecting now would continue to receive benefits until they die.

And where have you been? I've shown several times how if contributions and matching stayed at the same levels as the past 20 years but each account was privately owned that people would have substantially higher incomes in retirement and most likely be able to leave a lot of money to their heirs (assuming the government doesn't steal that via the death tax)

I understand the benefit to employees, but I see several major problems.

First, how do you fulfill the government’s obligation to pay current and future benefits if FICA taxes are being directed to a private account? The trust fund will be gone in about 15 years or less.

Secondly, how would you handle SSI, Supplemental Security Income which supplements any Social Security payments providing help for the blind, and disabled. It is a federal funded program with benefits coordinated with Social Security payments.

I would think that a mandate that employees invest a portion of their income, would meet the same constitutional challenges as mandated healthcare, but without such a mandate, we would end up with government funded senior welfare system.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It would be virtually impossible to abolish S.S. because 1/3 of the adults in the US are either on S.S. or will be within 20 years plus over 70% of the people believe it is a good program.

But assume it could be phased out over say the next 50 years how would that benefit the nation?

You could give people under the age of 50 the option of taking what they put in in one lump sum. Anyone collecting now would continue to receive benefits until they die.

And where have you been? I've shown several times how if contributions and matching stayed at the same levels as the past 20 years but each account was privately owned that people would have substantially higher incomes in retirement and most likely be able to leave a lot of money to their heirs (assuming the government doesn't steal that via the death tax)

I understand the benefit to employees, but I see several major problems.

First, how do you fulfill the government’s obligation to pay current and future benefits if FICA taxes are being directed to a private account? The trust fund will be gone in about 15 years or less.

Find the money. We find money for all kinds of worthless shit so I don't think it will be as hard as you think

Secondly, how would you handle SSI, Supplemental Security Income which supplements any Social Security payments providing help for the blind, and disabled. It is a federal funded program with benefits coordinated with Social Security payments.

What's wrong with families taking care of their own? People will have money to leave upon their death to a trust for the care of a disabled family member.

I would think that a mandate that employees invest a portion of their income, would meet the same constitutional challenges as mandated healthcare, but without such a mandate, we would end up with government funded senior welfare system.

The government has been requiring contributions and matching for everyone currently living today so I think the sentiment might not be as negative as one towards the government mandating a new expense such as health insurance.

No one is more against government meddling than I but this would be one exception to my rule that I could live with.

 

[Flopper]

You could give people under the age of 50 the option of taking what they put in in one lump sum. Anyone collecting now would continue to receive benefits until they die.

And where have you been? I've shown several times how if contributions and matching stayed at the same levels as the past 20 years but each account was privately owned that people would have substantially higher incomes in retirement and most likely be able to leave a lot of money to their heirs (assuming the government doesn't steal that via the death tax)

I understand the benefit to employees, but I see several major problems.

First, how do you fulfill the government’s obligation to pay current and future benefits if FICA taxes are being directed to a private account? The trust fund will be gone in about 15 years or less.

Find the money. We find money for all kinds of worthless shit so I don't think it will be as hard as you think

Secondly, how would you handle SSI, Supplemental Security Income which supplements any Social Security payments providing help for the blind, and disabled. It is a federal funded program with benefits coordinated with Social Security payments.

What's wrong with families taking care of their own? People will have money to leave upon their death to a trust for the care of a disabled family member.

I would think that a mandate that employees invest a portion of their income, would meet the same constitutional challenges as mandated healthcare, but without such a mandate, we would end up with government funded senior welfare system.

The government has been requiring contributions and matching for everyone currently living today so I think the sentiment might not be as negative as one towards the government mandating a new expense such as health insurance.

No one is more against government meddling than I but this would be one exception to my rule that I could live with.

What's wrong with families taking care their own? Nothing if you're living in the 19th century. The make up the family today is very different. The average US family is half the size it was 50 years ago. 25% of the families have only one parent. At retirement age in 20 years, a retiree is likely to have only one child and one sibling and possibly a spouse. This small family is no longer close either geographically or otherwise.

Mom lives on her dead husbands S.S. check and a small savings account in Florida. Junior is married with one kid living in a small apartment in LA and sees Mom every year or so. No way is Mom moving in with Junior. This is the case with millions of retirees today and it's not going get any better in the future. So you can forget about the family of tomorrow taking care of the elderly and disabled.

 

[asterism]

I understand the benefit to employees, but I see several major problems.

First, how do you fulfill the government’s obligation to pay current and future benefits if FICA taxes are being directed to a private account? The trust fund will be gone in about 15 years or less.

Find the money. We find money for all kinds of worthless shit so I don't think it will be as hard as you think



What's wrong with families taking care of their own? People will have money to leave upon their death to a trust for the care of a disabled family member.

I would think that a mandate that employees invest a portion of their income, would meet the same constitutional challenges as mandated healthcare, but without such a mandate, we would end up with government funded senior welfare system.

The government has been requiring contributions and matching for everyone currently living today so I think the sentiment might not be as negative as one towards the government mandating a new expense such as health insurance.

No one is more against government meddling than I but this would be one exception to my rule that I could live with.

What's wrong with families taking care their own? Nothing if you're living in the 19th century. The make up the family today is very different. The average US family is half the size it was 50 years ago. 25% of the families have only one parent. At retirement age in 20 years, a retiree is likely to have only one child and one sibling and possibly a spouse. This small family is no longer close either geographically or otherwise.

Mom lives on her dead husbands S.S. check and a small savings account in Florida. Junior is married with one kid living in a small apartment in LA and sees Mom every year or so. No way is Mom moving in with Junior. This is the case with millions of retirees today and it's not going get any better in the future. So you can forget about the family of tomorrow taking care of the elderly and disabled.

You should come to Florida and see all the 2nd and 3rd houses that Social Security is paying for. Go to The Villages and listen.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I understand the benefit to employees, but I see several major problems.

First, how do you fulfill the government’s obligation to pay current and future benefits if FICA taxes are being directed to a private account? The trust fund will be gone in about 15 years or less.

Find the money. We find money for all kinds of worthless shit so I don't think it will be as hard as you think



What's wrong with families taking care of their own? People will have money to leave upon their death to a trust for the care of a disabled family member.

I would think that a mandate that employees invest a portion of their income, would meet the same constitutional challenges as mandated healthcare, but without such a mandate, we would end up with government funded senior welfare system.

The government has been requiring contributions and matching for everyone currently living today so I think the sentiment might not be as negative as one towards the government mandating a new expense such as health insurance.

No one is more against government meddling than I but this would be one exception to my rule that I could live with.

What's wrong with families taking care their own? Nothing if you're living in the 19th century. The make up the family today is very different. The average US family is half the size it was 50 years ago. 25% of the families have only one parent. At retirement age in 20 years, a retiree is likely to have only one child and one sibling and possibly a spouse. This small family is no longer close either geographically or otherwise.

Mom lives on her dead husbands S.S. check and a small savings account in Florida. Junior is married with one kid living in a small apartment in LA and sees Mom every year or so. No way is Mom moving in with Junior. This is the case with millions of retirees today and it's not going get any better in the future. So you can forget about the family of tomorrow taking care of the elderly and disabled.

They won't have to take care of the elderly because if people kept their money people would be wealthy when they retired instead of living on a pittance that SS gives them.

 

[Flopper]

Find the money. We find money for all kinds of worthless shit so I don't think it will be as hard as you think



What's wrong with families taking care of their own? People will have money to leave upon their death to a trust for the care of a disabled family member.



The government has been requiring contributions and matching for everyone currently living today so I think the sentiment might not be as negative as one towards the government mandating a new expense such as health insurance.

No one is more against government meddling than I but this would be one exception to my rule that I could live with.

What's wrong with families taking care their own? Nothing if you're living in the 19th century. The make up the family today is very different. The average US family is half the size it was 50 years ago. 25% of the families have only one parent. At retirement age in 20 years, a retiree is likely to have only one child and one sibling and possibly a spouse. This small family is no longer close either geographically or otherwise.

Mom lives on her dead husbands S.S. check and a small savings account in Florida. Junior is married with one kid living in a small apartment in LA and sees Mom every year or so. No way is Mom moving in with Junior. This is the case with millions of retirees today and it's not going get any better in the future. So you can forget about the family of tomorrow taking care of the elderly and disabled.

You should come to Florida and see all the 2nd and 3rd houses that Social Security is paying for. Go to The Villages and listen.

Spent many years there. And there are also hundreds of trailer parks filled with people living off S.S.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What's wrong with families taking care their own? Nothing if you're living in the 19th century. The make up the family today is very different. The average US family is half the size it was 50 years ago. 25% of the families have only one parent. At retirement age in 20 years, a retiree is likely to have only one child and one sibling and possibly a spouse. This small family is no longer close either geographically or otherwise.

Mom lives on her dead husbands S.S. check and a small savings account in Florida. Junior is married with one kid living in a small apartment in LA and sees Mom every year or so. No way is Mom moving in with Junior. This is the case with millions of retirees today and it's not going get any better in the future. So you can forget about the family of tomorrow taking care of the elderly and disabled.

You should come to Florida and see all the 2nd and 3rd houses that Social Security is paying for. Go to The Villages and listen.

Spent many years there. And there are also hundreds of trailer parks filled with people living off S.S.

Because SS is such a good deal right?

 

[Flopper]

You should come to Florida and see all the 2nd and 3rd houses that Social Security is paying for. Go to The Villages and listen.

Spent many years there. And there are also hundreds of trailer parks filled with people living off S.S.

Because SS is such a good deal right?

That depends on your perspective.

 

[asterism]

What's wrong with families taking care their own? Nothing if you're living in the 19th century. The make up the family today is very different. The average US family is half the size it was 50 years ago. 25% of the families have only one parent. At retirement age in 20 years, a retiree is likely to have only one child and one sibling and possibly a spouse. This small family is no longer close either geographically or otherwise.

Mom lives on her dead husbands S.S. check and a small savings account in Florida. Junior is married with one kid living in a small apartment in LA and sees Mom every year or so. No way is Mom moving in with Junior. This is the case with millions of retirees today and it's not going get any better in the future. So you can forget about the family of tomorrow taking care of the elderly and disabled.

You should come to Florida and see all the 2nd and 3rd houses that Social Security is paying for. Go to The Villages and listen.

Spent many years there. And there are also hundreds of trailer parks filled with people living off S.S.

True. I'm not suggesting the government cancel assistance to them. SS would be effective and sustainable if we means tested the benefits and cut the contribution rates to only cover poor seniors. At that point we could remove the income cap and raise the income requirement for taxation from zero to something like $50K.

 

[Flopper]

You should come to Florida and see all the 2nd and 3rd houses that Social Security is paying for. Go to The Villages and listen.

Spent many years there. And there are also hundreds of trailer parks filled with people living off S.S.

True. I'm not suggesting the government cancel assistance to them. SS would be effective and sustainable if we means tested the benefits and cut the contribution rates to only cover poor seniors. At that point we could remove the income cap and raise the income requirement for taxation from zero to something like $50K.

I think that is a good approach provided it can be phased in over a number of years. Savings S.S. is so easy I can't believe that nothing is being done. Increasing retirement age, taxing benefits, changing the benefit formula, or a combination of these actions can make the system sustainable without increase the FICA rate.

The baby bloomers have just started receiving benefits. The number will peak in 2024 and will fall off. However the trust will be depleted by 2038 and benefits will have to be reduced by 25% if Congress does nothing which is unlikely. By 2075, the number of new retirees will be half what they are today. The lower birthrates are not a solution since the number in workplace will be lower, but it will significantly reduce magnitude of the problem. Here are the birth rates per 1000 population by year:

1959 24.3
1970 18.5
1980 15.9
2000 14.7
2010 13.9

 

[asterism]

Spent many years there. And there are also hundreds of trailer parks filled with people living off S.S.

True. I'm not suggesting the government cancel assistance to them. SS would be effective and sustainable if we means tested the benefits and cut the contribution rates to only cover poor seniors. At that point we could remove the income cap and raise the income requirement for taxation from zero to something like $50K.

I think that is a good approach provided it can be phased in over a number of years. Savings S.S. is so easy I can't believe that nothing is being done. Increasing retirement age, taxing benefits, changing the benefit formula, or a combination of these actions can make the system sustainable without increase the FICA rate.

The baby bloomers have just started receiving benefits. The number will peak in 2024 and will fall off. However the trust will be depleted by 2038 and benefits will have to be reduced by 25% if Congress does nothing which is unlikely. By 2075, the number of new retirees will be half what they are today. The lower birthrates are not a solution since the number in workplace will be lower, but it will significantly reduce magnitude of the problem. Here are the birth rates per 1000 population by year:

1959 24.3
1970 18.5
1980 15.9
2000 14.7
2010 13.9

Can't buy too many votes with SS if most seniors aren't on it.

I agree with phasing the reform in. If benefit payouts were limited to people who needed it to get by then the FICA rates would drop like a stone. But that doesn't sit well with those who don't think people should be in a position to manage their own money.

 

[Chris]

Republicans want to privatize SS, so Wall Street can steal all of our money, not just some of it.

 

[Flopper]

True. I'm not suggesting the government cancel assistance to them. SS would be effective and sustainable if we means tested the benefits and cut the contribution rates to only cover poor seniors. At that point we could remove the income cap and raise the income requirement for taxation from zero to something like $50K.

I think that is a good approach provided it can be phased in over a number of years. Savings S.S. is so easy I can't believe that nothing is being done. Increasing retirement age, taxing benefits, changing the benefit formula, or a combination of these actions can make the system sustainable without increase the FICA rate.

The baby bloomers have just started receiving benefits. The number will peak in 2024 and will fall off. However the trust will be depleted by 2038 and benefits will have to be reduced by 25% if Congress does nothing which is unlikely. By 2075, the number of new retirees will be half what they are today. The lower birthrates are not a solution since the number in workplace will be lower, but it will significantly reduce magnitude of the problem. Here are the birth rates per 1000 population by year:

1959 24.3
1970 18.5
1980 15.9
2000 14.7
2010 13.9

Can't buy too many votes with SS if most seniors aren't on it.

I agree with phasing the reform in. If benefit payouts were limited to people who needed it to get by then the FICA rates would drop like a stone. But that doesn't sit well with those who don't think people should be in a position to manage their own money.

There are over a million workers that are illiterate. By illiterate, I mean they cannot read and understand simple sentence nor can they do most elementary math. In addition there are about 20 million adults that are functionally illiterate. By this I mean they can not write letters, understand written instructions or do math requiring additions, subtraction, understanding fractions, decimals, or percentages. Is the government to say to these people here is 16% of your pay, invest it wisely? To do so is to create an unfunded senior welfare systems so the better educated and more investment savvy can manage their investments. Considering the investment success of the average investor, this does not sound like a good trade off.

If we were to privatize S.S. it should be done by the Social Security Administration modifying it's current investment formula to include some non-government investments. This would increase the return and it would be low risk. It would not be a safety net which of course defeats the primary purpose of S.S.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Republicans want to privatize SS, so Wall Street can steal all of our money, not just some of it.

Just who is Wall Street?

I buy Mutual funds and stocks from an on line broker. I pay no fees to any firm.

If you want to remain ignorant about your finances then do so, just don't ask me to foot the bill for you.

 

[Flopper]

Republicans want to privatize SS, so Wall Street can steal all of our money, not just some of it.

Just who is Wall Street?

I buy Mutual funds and stocks from an on line broker. I pay no fees to any firm.

If you want to remain ignorant about your finances then do so, just don't ask me to foot the bill for you.

You pay for it. It's a hidden cost.