There is NO RISK in privatizing SS and investing in stock market!!!

[healthmyths]

Calls it a Ponzi scheme and then insults others' intelligence. Go figure.

Still HCmyths are, imo, illuminating. The dislike of soc sec has nothing to do with solvency, because its been pointed out time and again that either a modest tax increase of $15 mo, or even better removing the cap on higher earners, would bring in enough revenue to pay all retirees at current rates until the time when the Boomers are dead, and they system would be fully funded even at today's tax rates. Rather, the dislike of soc sec is simply that under its scheme there will not be losers. It's that simple. Full privatization might make some make more, and some would lose all or most. That's the desired result of those who dislike soc sec.

either a modest tax increase of $15 mo, or even better removing the cap on higher earners, would bring in enough revenue to pay all retirees at current rates until the time when the Boomers are dead, and they system would be fully funded even at today's tax rates.

You have a link for these claims?

Rather, the dislike of soc sec is simply that under its scheme there will not be losers.

That's not true at all.
My projected return on Social Security will be much, much less than the same amount invested in the market.

With Social Security, return is sacrificed for reduced risk. You can count on it being there when you retire or if you become disable. This is why we call it a safety net. Pension plans are fast disappearing. Most people have tax sheltered retirement plans heavily invested in the market. If your health turns bad and you decide to retire next year, your 401K or IRA could be worth half what it is today as was the case with many Americans in 2009. Although a 1930's type depression may be unlikely, it is certainly possible.

The smart thing to do is to manage risk/return of your investments and reduce your vulnerability to market volatility as you age. However, most people are not very good at retirement planning. One third of Americans have less than a $1,000 saved for retirement. 60% of American workers have less $25,000.

The average worker will change jobs about 15 times during their career. So what happens to retirement plans when people change jobs. The smart thing to do is maintain them or carry them over to the new employer. Many workers cash plans in when they change jobs, have family emergencies, or send the kids off to college. During the last recession 42% of the people who changed jobs either withdrew funds or cashed in their retirement.

Americans need a safety net so no matter what happens in their working life or the economy, there will at least be something there for the time when they can not work. If you eliminated social security for new workers today and allowed them to invest the money, in 30 years you'll have a huge welfare program supporting those that did save for retirement.
401 k breaches undermining retirement security for millions - The Washington Post

So you are part of that elitist group that think MOST Americans are too stupid to take care of themselves! We need the government from womb to tomb! Sorry charlie but we are witnessing the ineffectiveness of that attitude in this Ebola pandemic.
The CDC spending on drunken monkeys...give me a break!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

With Social Security, return is sacrificed for reduced risk. You can count on it being there when you retire or if you become disable. This is why we call it a safety net. Pension plans are fast disappearing. Most people have tax sheltered retirement plans heavily invested in the market. If your health turns bad and you decide to retire next year, your 401K or IRA could be worth half what it is today as was the case with many Americans in 2009. Although a 1930's type depression may be unlikely, it is certainly possible.

The smart thing to do is to manage risk/return of your investments and reduce your vulnerability to market volatility as you age. However, most people are not very good at retirement planning. One third of Americans have less than a $1,000 saved for retirement. 60% of American workers have less $25,000.

The average worker will change jobs about 15 times during their career. So what happens to retirement plans when people change jobs. The smart thing to do is maintain them or carry them over to the new employer. Many workers cash plans in when they change jobs, have family emergencies, or send the kids off to college. During the last recession 42% of the people who changed jobs either withdrew funds or cashed in their retirement.

Americans need a safety net so no matter what happens in their working life or the economy, there will at least be something there for the time when they can not work. If you eliminated social security for new workers today and allowed them to invest the money, in 30 years you'll have a huge welfare program supporting those that did save for retirement.
401 k breaches undermining retirement security for millions - The Washington Post

The smart thing to do is to manage risk/return of your investments and reduce your vulnerability to market volatility as you age.

You bet.

One third of Americans have less than a $1,000 saved for retirement. 60% of American workers have less $25,000.

They'd have more if 12.4% of their earnings were in the market, instead of spent by the Feds.

The average worker will change jobs about 15 times during their career. So what happens to retirement plans when people change jobs.

Their private plan would go with them.

Many workers cash plans in when they change jobs, have family emergencies, or send the kids off to college.

I'd be against allowing that for these private Soc Sec accounts.

Americans need a safety net

Privatizing Soc Sec will in no way limit the ability of Americans to save additional money for retirement.
12.4% minimum of lifetime earnings is a pretty decent safety net.

If you eliminated social security for new workers today and allowed them to invest the money, in 30 years you'll have a huge welfare program supporting those that did save for retirement.

Why would better returns require a welfare program?

 

[healthmyths]

Some one point out the flaw in the below as I made several assumptions for a young person graduating from college in 2014 and based
on graduate working 40 years to age 65... total accumulation totally under employee's control... but not accessible during working years...

 

[Listening]

Numbers !!!!!

I love it.

Thanks.

 

[bendog]

Todd, how would you feel about simply having some/all soc sec taxes being automatically placed in one large fund of diversified index funds, and on retirement each "investor" getting a defined benefit from that fund? Or must it all be individually privatized accounts to satisfy you?

How would the defined benefit be related to lifetime contributions?
What happens to the balance when the retiree dies?

I assume there would have to be a minimum benefit for lower earners, as there is now, and that would require some govt funds in addition employment tax revenue. But, other than that I assume we could make the thing work like an annuity of state govt retirement program, where if a retired worker died with a balance of unpaid out contributions, his estate would get them. Whether it would be fiscally possible to pay out the unpaid employers' contributions ... I dunno. State plans keep that, and it pays (in theory) for those retirees who live longer than actuarial expectations. An annuity pays out the entire balance.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

The smart thing to do is to manage risk/return of your investments and reduce your vulnerability to market volatility as you age. However, most people are not very good at retirement planning. One third of Americans have less than a $1,000 saved for retirement. 60% of American workers have less $25,000.

[...]

You make the mistake of assuming every American worker is capable of managing an investment portfolio when in fact it calls for a specifically adaptable mentality (which you obviously have) to do so competently.

Inability to deal with abstract numerical concepts doesn't mean one is stupid or generally incompetent. Some people can draw, others cannot. Some people are musically talented, others can't carry a tune. And some people are capable of performing physically demanding tasks which the numbers mentality is utterly incapable of.

There are millions of construction laborers, truck drivers, iron-workers, auto mechanics, etc., who are virtually helpless when it comes to paperwork. Considering the kind of conniving scoundrels who inhabit the world of finance and investing, what would happen to this vast category of workers if Social Security were privatized and they were left to manage portfolios?

Last, as someone else here already has pointed out, if Social Security were optional rather than mandatory many millions would opt out and end up on the welfare dole. So in the final analysis, while Social Security has its faults, all in all it has proven to be a major benefit to the vast majority of retired American workers -- (including me).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[...]

The smart thing to do is to manage risk/return of your investments and reduce your vulnerability to market volatility as you age. However, most people are not very good at retirement planning. One third of Americans have less than a $1,000 saved for retirement. 60% of American workers have less $25,000.

[...]

You make the mistake of assuming every American worker is capable of managing an investment portfolio when in fact it calls for a specifically adaptable mentality (which you obviously have) to do so competently.

Inability to deal with abstract numerical concepts doesn't mean one is stupid or generally incompetent. Some people can draw, others cannot. Some people are musically talented, others can't carry a tune. And some people are capable of performing physically demanding tasks which the numbers mentality is utterly incapable of.

There are millions of construction laborers, truck drivers, iron-workers, auto mechanics, etc., who are virtually helpless when it comes to paperwork. Considering the kind of conniving scoundrels who inhabit the world of finance and investing, what would happen to this vast category of workers if Social Security were privatized and they were left to manage portfolios?

Last, as someone else here already has pointed out, if Social Security were optional rather than mandatory many millions would opt out and end up on the welfare dole. So in the final analysis, while Social Security has its faults, all in all it has proven to be a major benefit to the vast majority of retired American workers -- (including me).

You make the mistake of assuming every American worker is capable of managing an investment portfolio when in fact it calls for a specifically adaptable mentality (which you obviously have) to do so competently.

No. I'm assuming we can create a system that removes the need for workers to be market experts.
We can easily set it up so that the private Soc Sec accounts start at 80/20 stocks to bonds and as the workers ages, the number eventually changes to 60/40. At retirement, we can adjust further.

what would happen to this vast category of workers if Social Security were privatized and they were left to manage portfolios?

Under my ideal, they'd have a big nest egg when they retire, higher monthly benefits during retirement and a big chunk of change for their heirs, if they die early.
Last, as someone else here already has pointed out, if Social Security were optional rather than mandatory many millions would opt out and end up on the welfare dole.

Who said we should make it optional? Just don't hand your monthly contribution to the crooks in DC to waste.

Social Security has its faults, all in all it has proven to be a major benefit to the vast majority of retired American workers -- (including me).

Sure. And now, we can do better.

 

[Andylusion]

Would the management fees be considered a tax by the right?

You still gonna tax me with an SS tax and then force me to invest it in private enterprise?
Sounds like forcing mer to buy insurance.

Actually, Social Security is an insurance policy. But it is the most benevolent and beneficial form of insurance ever devised. Because unless you die early you will get back every penny you paid in premiums -- and more! So thinking of Social Security as a tax is self-deceiving and serves interests other than your own.

If your FICA contributions deduct a painfully substantial part of your weekly paycheck it is obvious you don't earn that much, which means you can't afford to risk playing around in the stock market -- which is what a 401k plan is and don't let anyone tell you something different.

I'm 78 years old. On the first day of every month the Social Security Administration directly deposits a nice little sum into my checking account. They've been doing it for thirteen years so far and I have no doubt it will continue until I die.

I live in a large retirement community where I have several neighbors who thank their god every day for Social Security -- because their 401s knocked a big hole in their expectations when the market collapsed in 2008. As every one of these individuals will tell you, if they had all of their retirement money in their 401s they wouldn't be living here today.

So when thinking about Social Security, what other insurance policy do you know of which ensures a full return of every penny of your premium plus a lot more? Because Social Security will pay you until you die.

... Gah... but you are lying! People don't get back every penny they put in!

Further, it's nothing like an insurance policy, because if I don't like my insurance policy I can cancel it. I can't cancel Social Security Insurance!

If Social Security is in fact "is the most benevolent and beneficial form of insurance ever devised".... then explain to me why you have to force me into it by the point of a gun?!?!?!

If I don't pay FICA, people with guns show up and cart me off to jail. That's "benevolent and beneficial" in your world?

"Do what I say for your benefit, or I'll harm you!" -Says every dictator in history, and dumb leftard on a forum.

If you have to FORCE people to do it, then it's not "benevolent and beneficial". You give people a choice of enrolling in Social Security, or not, and we'll see how the public feels about your "benevolent and beneficial" bull crap.

 

[Andylusion]

[...]

The smart thing to do is to manage risk/return of your investments and reduce your vulnerability to market volatility as you age. However, most people are not very good at retirement planning. One third of Americans have less than a $1,000 saved for retirement. 60% of American workers have less $25,000.

[...]

You make the mistake of assuming every American worker is capable of managing an investment portfolio when in fact it calls for a specifically adaptable mentality (which you obviously have) to do so competently.

LOL!!!

You are full of crap. This is the arrogance I expect from leftards.

See this right here is how the left really sees the public. They are too stupid to know what to do with their own money. So the arrogant self-important leftards deem only themselves able to handle your money.

How hard is it to open an account, select a mutual fund with a long track record, and automatically deposit money into it? I required 15 minutes of my time to buy my mutual funds. You don't need a degree, or accounting class, or much of anything, except the discipline to not spend every dollar you make.

I don't have a problem with people who are irresponsible, facing the consequences of their irresponsibility. Nor am I asking anyone to do what I have not done myself.

20 years ago, I blew every buck I made. I faced the consequences of going broke twice. Now I have money in the bank, money invested, and cash in my pocket. Why? Did I get a college degree? Did I learn some super-human skill? No... I made a budget, and spent less than I made. Thus I have savings, investments, and cash.

Why should I be punished by you scum sucking leftards, because I have acted more responsible than others? You are evil for pushing that belief.

 

[healthmyths]

[...]

The smart thing to do is to manage risk/return of your investments and reduce your vulnerability to market volatility as you age. However, most people are not very good at retirement planning. One third of Americans have less than a $1,000 saved for retirement. 60% of American workers have less $25,000.

[...]

You make the mistake of assuming every American worker is capable of managing an investment portfolio when in fact it calls for a specifically adaptable mentality (which you obviously have) to do so competently.

Inability to deal with abstract numerical concepts doesn't mean one is stupid or generally incompetent. Some people can draw, others cannot. Some people are musically talented, others can't carry a tune. And some people are capable of performing physically demanding tasks which the numbers mentality is utterly incapable of.

There are millions of construction laborers, truck drivers, iron-workers, auto mechanics, etc., who are virtually helpless when it comes to paperwork. Considering the kind of conniving scoundrels who inhabit the world of finance and investing, what would happen to this vast category of workers if Social Security were privatized and they were left to manage portfolios?

Last, as someone else here already has pointed out, if Social Security were optional rather than mandatory many millions would opt out and end up on the welfare dole. So in the final analysis, while Social Security has its faults, all in all it has proven to be a major benefit to the vast majority of retired American workers -- (including me).

Doesn't take ANY knowledge of portfolio management to put it all in a savings account!
The "millions" of Americans you denigrate as NOT being smart enough to know GUARANTEED versus NON-GUARANTEED might not
like that pompous elitist attitude you display.

 

[Flopper]

Gee, you think they picked their investments all by themselves, or do you think that 'experts' told them what to do for a fee, and they paid dearly for listening to self appointed experts (like you). SS is good, those who oppose it are the jerks who tell others what to invest in - for a fee - but put their own money in something else - using inside information they don't share with their clients.

EXPERTS would have told them to put MOST of their money in treasuries, bonds,etc. and NOT into the market.
But more importantly F...king common sense should dictate that!
They deserve to lose their money if they can't figure out that their nest egg would be at risk in the stock market at their AGE!
This is so stupid. Again total idiots would not assess the risk!
It is NOT self appointed experts but plain common sense! You don't when you are close to counting on that nest egg leave it at risk!
THAT simple!

Sure they would; experts are never corrupt and always ethical (sarcasm alert).

Yea and those "poor" misinformed low intelligent 401K losers.. were total dependents on the state to watch over them?
They couldn't make a decision about eating rat poisoning versus food? They didn't have driver's licenses that required them to make
decisions?
Come on! How totally stupid to believe common sense was totally lacking in these 401K losers!
OH wait...of course they had no common sense! They were losers!
Sorry. I have no pity for people that couldn't figure out that at age 60 their accumulated assets should be in the equities market!
Call them "greedy"...or call them dumb.. but one thing you can't say about them is they had any common sense...i.e. you don't put your
nest egg in equities when you are close to retirement!

You're an asshole as well as a phony. Your entire self righteous know-it-all attitude was barely tolerable, until you start attacking peoples' intelligence - people you don't know whose life experience are unique to them alone - that makes your posts not only hateful but foolish.

I am NOT against SS! I am against the phony premise that the majority of americans are too stupid to choose where THEIR money should go!
I am against the idiocy that the retirement age of 65 is still in place when that was the life span in the 30s which is why it was used!
Today the life span is 80!
I am for all people under AGE 55 to choose whether they can tell SS where to put their money be it into bank savings accounts or
high risk equities... it should be the person decision.
I am for the retirement age to be raised for ALL people under age 55 to age 69!
Given these three changes:
1) You can under age 55 keep the current method of SS
2) Or under age 55 choose to direct where the deduction will be put and based on HISTORY a person age 25 working 45 years
will put in over $300,000. Over 45 years putting initially into growth equities that historically appreciated at 7% a year by the time
the 25 is 50 they've accumulated nearly $1 million. At this point smart and most Americans put MOST of this secured investments
and the least in risk equities.
By the time then they are 69 their "nest egg" has grown to over $1 million. Putting most in an annuity paying them for life and
the rest for health/mad money they will also have something for their family.
3) Increase retirement to age 69.

But far from thinking as YOU do that most Americans are stupid, I trust most Americans to have more common sense then you for sure!
Most people know that the closer they are to retirement the more secure their nest egg should be... all but idiots like you think they
would leave their 401Ks in high risk equities at their time of approaching retirement!

I would say at least 1/3 of American adults lack the incentive to save for retirement. In spite of the tax benefits of retirement plans and employer contributions, 45 percent, or 38 million working-age households, do not have any retirement account assets. It's not that they are unaware of the need to save for retirement but rather there are higher priorities.

Jobs today simply don't last very long. The average employee spends only 4.4 years in a job. They leave with little retirement build up and quite often just spend it, particularly young workers when retirement savings yield the biggest rewards.

The average American family has over $15,000 in credit card debt, has emergency funds that will last less than 3 months, has little are no retirement savings, lives from paycheck to paycheck. 239 million are one financial setback away from economic ruin. The fact is most Americans do a lousy job of managing their finances. Give them the option to manage their social security funds and we will see a huge welfare program for retirees in 30 years who have mismanaged their investments.

People that successful manage their investments mistakenly think that everyone has the skills and incentives to do likewise.

 

[healthmyths]

EXPERTS would have told them to put MOST of their money in treasuries, bonds,etc. and NOT into the market.
But more importantly F...king common sense should dictate that!
They deserve to lose their money if they can't figure out that their nest egg would be at risk in the stock market at their AGE!
This is so stupid. Again total idiots would not assess the risk!
It is NOT self appointed experts but plain common sense! You don't when you are close to counting on that nest egg leave it at risk!
THAT simple!

Sure they would; experts are never corrupt and always ethical (sarcasm alert).

Yea and those "poor" misinformed low intelligent 401K losers.. were total dependents on the state to watch over them?
They couldn't make a decision about eating rat poisoning versus food? They didn't have driver's licenses that required them to make
decisions?
Come on! How totally stupid to believe common sense was totally lacking in these 401K losers!
OH wait...of course they had no common sense! They were losers!
Sorry. I have no pity for people that couldn't figure out that at age 60 their accumulated assets should be in the equities market!
Call them "greedy"...or call them dumb.. but one thing you can't say about them is they had any common sense...i.e. you don't put your
nest egg in equities when you are close to retirement!

You're an asshole as well as a phony. Your entire self righteous know-it-all attitude was barely tolerable, until you start attacking peoples' intelligence - people you don't know whose life experience are unique to them alone - that makes your posts not only hateful but foolish.

I am NOT against SS! I am against the phony premise that the majority of americans are too stupid to choose where THEIR money should go!
I am against the idiocy that the retirement age of 65 is still in place when that was the life span in the 30s which is why it was used!
Today the life span is 80!
I am for all people under AGE 55 to choose whether they can tell SS where to put their money be it into bank savings accounts or
high risk equities... it should be the person decision.
I am for the retirement age to be raised for ALL people under age 55 to age 69!
Given these three changes:
1) You can under age 55 keep the current method of SS
2) Or under age 55 choose to direct where the deduction will be put and based on HISTORY a person age 25 working 45 years
will put in over $300,000. Over 45 years putting initially into growth equities that historically appreciated at 7% a year by the time
the 25 is 50 they've accumulated nearly $1 million. At this point smart and most Americans put MOST of this secured investments
and the least in risk equities.
By the time then they are 69 their "nest egg" has grown to over $1 million. Putting most in an annuity paying them for life and
the rest for health/mad money they will also have something for their family.
3) Increase retirement to age 69.

But far from thinking as YOU do that most Americans are stupid, I trust most Americans to have more common sense then you for sure!
Most people know that the closer they are to retirement the more secure their nest egg should be... all but idiots like you think they
would leave their 401Ks in high risk equities at their time of approaching retirement!

I would say at least 1/3 of American adults lack the incentive to save for retirement. In spite of the tax benefits of retirement plans and employer contributions, 45 percent, or 38 million working-age households, do not have any retirement account assets. It's not that they are unaware of the need to save for retirement but rather there are higher priorities.

Jobs today simply don't last very long. The average employee spends only 4.4 years in a job. They leave with little retirement build up and quite often just spend it, particularly young workers when retirement savings yield the biggest rewards.

The average American family has over $15,000 in credit card debt, has emergency funds that will last less than 3 months, has little are no retirement savings, lives from paycheck to paycheck. 239 million are one financial setback away from economic ruin. The fact is most Americans do a lousy job of managing their finances. Give them the option to manage their social security funds and we will see a huge welfare program for retirees in 30 years who have mismanaged their investments.

People that successful manage their investments mistakenly think that everyone has the skills and incentives to do likewise.

NO people like YOU think EVERYONE is stupid!
The privatization allows forced SAVINGS of the 15% being USED by the government instead of investing in banks, etc.
I am going to do like you do... make a generalization here...
I would say 100% of all people graduating from high school at one time had some fundamentals of finance.
I.e. they know that the FDIC guarantees savings. They know from their biased teachers that the market is risky!
So given the choice of public education akin to how Healthcare.gov has with $2 billion provided "education" about Obamacare,
information as to fundamentals.. i.e. while young put SS into appreciating assets... then closer to retirement most in secured.
HOW complicated is that?

FACTS: Ownership of mutual funds has grown significantly over the past 25 years.
Nearly half of all U.S. households owned mutual funds in 2005, compared with less than 6 percent in 1980.
The 91 million individuals who own mutual funds include many different types of people with a variety of financial goals
Section 6 Mutual Fund Owners Who Are They and Where Do They Purchase Fund Shares

 

[Andylusion]

EXPERTS would have told them to put MOST of their money in treasuries, bonds,etc. and NOT into the market.
But more importantly F...king common sense should dictate that!
They deserve to lose their money if they can't figure out that their nest egg would be at risk in the stock market at their AGE!
This is so stupid. Again total idiots would not assess the risk!
It is NOT self appointed experts but plain common sense! You don't when you are close to counting on that nest egg leave it at risk!
THAT simple!

Sure they would; experts are never corrupt and always ethical (sarcasm alert).

Yea and those "poor" misinformed low intelligent 401K losers.. were total dependents on the state to watch over them?
They couldn't make a decision about eating rat poisoning versus food? They didn't have driver's licenses that required them to make
decisions?
Come on! How totally stupid to believe common sense was totally lacking in these 401K losers!
OH wait...of course they had no common sense! They were losers!
Sorry. I have no pity for people that couldn't figure out that at age 60 their accumulated assets should be in the equities market!
Call them "greedy"...or call them dumb.. but one thing you can't say about them is they had any common sense...i.e. you don't put your
nest egg in equities when you are close to retirement!

You're an asshole as well as a phony. Your entire self righteous know-it-all attitude was barely tolerable, until you start attacking peoples' intelligence - people you don't know whose life experience are unique to them alone - that makes your posts not only hateful but foolish.

I am NOT against SS! I am against the phony premise that the majority of americans are too stupid to choose where THEIR money should go!
I am against the idiocy that the retirement age of 65 is still in place when that was the life span in the 30s which is why it was used!
Today the life span is 80!
I am for all people under AGE 55 to choose whether they can tell SS where to put their money be it into bank savings accounts or
high risk equities... it should be the person decision.
I am for the retirement age to be raised for ALL people under age 55 to age 69!
Given these three changes:
1) You can under age 55 keep the current method of SS
2) Or under age 55 choose to direct where the deduction will be put and based on HISTORY a person age 25 working 45 years
will put in over $300,000. Over 45 years putting initially into growth equities that historically appreciated at 7% a year by the time
the 25 is 50 they've accumulated nearly $1 million. At this point smart and most Americans put MOST of this secured investments
and the least in risk equities.
By the time then they are 69 their "nest egg" has grown to over $1 million. Putting most in an annuity paying them for life and
the rest for health/mad money they will also have something for their family.
3) Increase retirement to age 69.

But far from thinking as YOU do that most Americans are stupid, I trust most Americans to have more common sense then you for sure!
Most people know that the closer they are to retirement the more secure their nest egg should be... all but idiots like you think they
would leave their 401Ks in high risk equities at their time of approaching retirement!

I would say at least 1/3 of American adults lack the incentive to save for retirement. In spite of the tax benefits of retirement plans and employer contributions, 45 percent, or 38 million working-age households, do not have any retirement account assets. It's not that they are unaware of the need to save for retirement but rather there are higher priorities.

Jobs today simply don't last very long. The average employee spends only 4.4 years in a job. They leave with little retirement build up and quite often just spend it, particularly young workers when retirement savings yield the biggest rewards.

The average American family has over $15,000 in credit card debt, has emergency funds that will last less than 3 months, has little are no retirement savings, lives from paycheck to paycheck. 239 million are one financial setback away from economic ruin. The fact is most Americans do a lousy job of managing their finances. Give them the option to manage their social security funds and we will see a huge welfare program for retirees in 30 years who have mismanaged their investments.

People that successful manage their investments mistakenly think that everyone has the skills and incentives to do likewise.

No, that's not what we think. We think the left has created a system that reduces the incentives to do likewise.

The reason people live for the moment, is because culturally we have accepted a belief system that "Society should take care of me".

When you believe you are "entitled" to Health care, food, housing, clothing, and everything else... your incentive to make sure you have taken care of your own needs is lower.

I've met, and talked with people that openly said "Social Security will take care of me". In fact I had a roommate in my own home, who said as much. And this chick spent every dollar she earned. Paid on Friday, broke by Thursday.

She had no intention whatsoever of saving for retirement because she believed Social Security would take care of her.

If she knew that when she couldn't work anymore, she would be absolutely broke, she wouldn't blown every dollar she earned like that. She would have had 'incentive' to save.

You keep looking at a situation, created by the incentives you created, and then cry that people are not preparing for retirement.

Yes... we know... the problem is in your mirror. Your faulty ideology created this problem.... and now it's catching up with us.

Doesn't matter what your intentions are, or how much you think people need it. The system is going broke. Soviet Union is gone. Greece is bankrupt. Venezuela is starving. Cuba is impoverished. China adopted Capitalism. India is Corporate now.

Your system doesn't work. Whether is economy wide socialism, or just social pension systems. It fails every single time it's tried.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sure they would; experts are never corrupt and always ethical (sarcasm alert).

Yea and those "poor" misinformed low intelligent 401K losers.. were total dependents on the state to watch over them?
They couldn't make a decision about eating rat poisoning versus food? They didn't have driver's licenses that required them to make
decisions?
Come on! How totally stupid to believe common sense was totally lacking in these 401K losers!
OH wait...of course they had no common sense! They were losers!
Sorry. I have no pity for people that couldn't figure out that at age 60 their accumulated assets should be in the equities market!
Call them "greedy"...or call them dumb.. but one thing you can't say about them is they had any common sense...i.e. you don't put your
nest egg in equities when you are close to retirement!

You're an asshole as well as a phony. Your entire self righteous know-it-all attitude was barely tolerable, until you start attacking peoples' intelligence - people you don't know whose life experience are unique to them alone - that makes your posts not only hateful but foolish.

I am NOT against SS! I am against the phony premise that the majority of americans are too stupid to choose where THEIR money should go!
I am against the idiocy that the retirement age of 65 is still in place when that was the life span in the 30s which is why it was used!
Today the life span is 80!
I am for all people under AGE 55 to choose whether they can tell SS where to put their money be it into bank savings accounts or
high risk equities... it should be the person decision.
I am for the retirement age to be raised for ALL people under age 55 to age 69!
Given these three changes:
1) You can under age 55 keep the current method of SS
2) Or under age 55 choose to direct where the deduction will be put and based on HISTORY a person age 25 working 45 years
will put in over $300,000. Over 45 years putting initially into growth equities that historically appreciated at 7% a year by the time
the 25 is 50 they've accumulated nearly $1 million. At this point smart and most Americans put MOST of this secured investments
and the least in risk equities.
By the time then they are 69 their "nest egg" has grown to over $1 million. Putting most in an annuity paying them for life and
the rest for health/mad money they will also have something for their family.
3) Increase retirement to age 69.

But far from thinking as YOU do that most Americans are stupid, I trust most Americans to have more common sense then you for sure!
Most people know that the closer they are to retirement the more secure their nest egg should be... all but idiots like you think they
would leave their 401Ks in high risk equities at their time of approaching retirement!

I would say at least 1/3 of American adults lack the incentive to save for retirement. In spite of the tax benefits of retirement plans and employer contributions, 45 percent, or 38 million working-age households, do not have any retirement account assets. It's not that they are unaware of the need to save for retirement but rather there are higher priorities.

Jobs today simply don't last very long. The average employee spends only 4.4 years in a job. They leave with little retirement build up and quite often just spend it, particularly young workers when retirement savings yield the biggest rewards.

The average American family has over $15,000 in credit card debt, has emergency funds that will last less than 3 months, has little are no retirement savings, lives from paycheck to paycheck. 239 million are one financial setback away from economic ruin. The fact is most Americans do a lousy job of managing their finances. Give them the option to manage their social security funds and we will see a huge welfare program for retirees in 30 years who have mismanaged their investments.

People that successful manage their investments mistakenly think that everyone has the skills and incentives to do likewise.

No, that's not what we think. We think the left has created a system that reduces the incentives to do likewise.

The reason people live for the moment, is because culturally we have accepted a belief system that "Society should take care of me".

When you believe you are "entitled" to Health care, food, housing, clothing, and everything else... your incentive to make sure you have taken care of your own needs is lower.

I've met, and talked with people that openly said "Social Security will take care of me". In fact I had a roommate in my own home, who said as much. And this chick spent every dollar she earned. Paid on Friday, broke by Thursday.

She had no intention whatsoever of saving for retirement because she believed Social Security would take care of her.

If she knew that when she couldn't work anymore, she would be absolutely broke, she wouldn't blown every dollar she earned like that. She would have had 'incentive' to save.

You keep looking at a situation, created by the incentives you created, and then cry that people are not preparing for retirement.

Yes... we know... the problem is in your mirror. Your faulty ideology created this problem.... and now it's catching up with us.

Doesn't matter what your intentions are, or how much you think people need it. The system is going broke. Soviet Union is gone. Greece is bankrupt. Venezuela is starving. Cuba is impoverished. China adopted Capitalism. India is Corporate now.

Your system doesn't work. Whether is economy wide socialism, or just social pension systems. It fails every single time it's tried.

SS HAS worked for three generations. It is not socialism nor is it a Ponzi Scheme. Yes, some people are irresponsible and callous conservatives will be happy to step over their bodies - most of us will not.

 

[Flopper]

Sure they would; experts are never corrupt and always ethical (sarcasm alert).

Yea and those "poor" misinformed low intelligent 401K losers.. were total dependents on the state to watch over them?
They couldn't make a decision about eating rat poisoning versus food? They didn't have driver's licenses that required them to make
decisions?
Come on! How totally stupid to believe common sense was totally lacking in these 401K losers!
OH wait...of course they had no common sense! They were losers!
Sorry. I have no pity for people that couldn't figure out that at age 60 their accumulated assets should be in the equities market!
Call them "greedy"...or call them dumb.. but one thing you can't say about them is they had any common sense...i.e. you don't put your
nest egg in equities when you are close to retirement!

You're an asshole as well as a phony. Your entire self righteous know-it-all attitude was barely tolerable, until you start attacking peoples' intelligence - people you don't know whose life experience are unique to them alone - that makes your posts not only hateful but foolish.

I am NOT against SS! I am against the phony premise that the majority of americans are too stupid to choose where THEIR money should go!
I am against the idiocy that the retirement age of 65 is still in place when that was the life span in the 30s which is why it was used!
Today the life span is 80!
I am for all people under AGE 55 to choose whether they can tell SS where to put their money be it into bank savings accounts or
high risk equities... it should be the person decision.
I am for the retirement age to be raised for ALL people under age 55 to age 69!
Given these three changes:
1) You can under age 55 keep the current method of SS
2) Or under age 55 choose to direct where the deduction will be put and based on HISTORY a person age 25 working 45 years
will put in over $300,000. Over 45 years putting initially into growth equities that historically appreciated at 7% a year by the time
the 25 is 50 they've accumulated nearly $1 million. At this point smart and most Americans put MOST of this secured investments
and the least in risk equities.
By the time then they are 69 their "nest egg" has grown to over $1 million. Putting most in an annuity paying them for life and
the rest for health/mad money they will also have something for their family.
3) Increase retirement to age 69.

But far from thinking as YOU do that most Americans are stupid, I trust most Americans to have more common sense then you for sure!
Most people know that the closer they are to retirement the more secure their nest egg should be... all but idiots like you think they
would leave their 401Ks in high risk equities at their time of approaching retirement!

I would say at least 1/3 of American adults lack the incentive to save for retirement. In spite of the tax benefits of retirement plans and employer contributions, 45 percent, or 38 million working-age households, do not have any retirement account assets. It's not that they are unaware of the need to save for retirement but rather there are higher priorities.

Jobs today simply don't last very long. The average employee spends only 4.4 years in a job. They leave with little retirement build up and quite often just spend it, particularly young workers when retirement savings yield the biggest rewards.

The average American family has over $15,000 in credit card debt, has emergency funds that will last less than 3 months, has little are no retirement savings, lives from paycheck to paycheck. 239 million are one financial setback away from economic ruin. The fact is most Americans do a lousy job of managing their finances. Give them the option to manage their social security funds and we will see a huge welfare program for retirees in 30 years who have mismanaged their investments.

People that successful manage their investments mistakenly think that everyone has the skills and incentives to do likewise.

No, that's not what we think. We think the left has created a system that reduces the incentives to do likewise.

The reason people live for the moment, is because culturally we have accepted a belief system that "Society should take care of me".

When you believe you are "entitled" to Health care, food, housing, clothing, and everything else... your incentive to make sure you have taken care of your own needs is lower.

I've met, and talked with people that openly said "Social Security will take care of me". In fact I had a roommate in my own home, who said as much. And this chick spent every dollar she earned. Paid on Friday, broke by Thursday.

She had no intention whatsoever of saving for retirement because she believed Social Security would take care of her.

If she knew that when she couldn't work anymore, she would be absolutely broke, she wouldn't blown every dollar she earned like that. She would have had 'incentive' to save.

You keep looking at a situation, created by the incentives you created, and then cry that people are not preparing for retirement.

Yes... we know... the problem is in your mirror. Your faulty ideology created this problem.... and now it's catching up with us.

Doesn't matter what your intentions are, or how much you think people need it. The system is going broke. Soviet Union is gone. Greece is bankrupt. Venezuela is starving. Cuba is impoverished. China adopted Capitalism. India is Corporate now.

Your system doesn't work. Whether is economy wide socialism, or just social pension systems. It fails every single time it's tried.

Apparently you're generalizing the topic from a debate over the merits of privatizing social security to a debate over elimination of government programs to force people to take personal responsibility for their lives

The problem with this theory is two fold. First, legislation can't be passed, which should end the debate. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and other major social programs are very popular with the public. You need only to look at past efforts to abolish them. Secondly, the theory is based on the idea that the nation would be better off without safety nets. There is no evidence to support that. It's analogous to removing the net below trapeze artists. You may get a better show without safety nets but you also may have some dead trapeze artists.

 

[MikeK]

... Gah... but you are lying! People don't get back every penny they put in![...]

Actually it depends on how long one lives. If one dies early, then you'd be right. But I've been collecting Social Security for over thirteen years. I'm 78 years old and my genes project an 85 year life span, which is not untypical.

I'm already fully reimbursed and if I make it to 85 I will be just one more example of the positively beneficial nature of the Social Security program.

And you don't really think I'm lying. You just hope I am.



Further, it's nothing like an insurance policy, because if I don't like my insurance policy I can cancel it. I can't cancel Social Security Insurance!

If Social Security is in fact "is the most benevolent and beneficial form of insurance ever devised".... then explain to me why you have to force me into it by the point of a gun?!?!?!

If I don't pay FICA, people with guns show up and cart me off to jail. That's "benevolent and beneficial" in your world?

"Do what I say for your benefit, or I'll harm you!" -Says every dictator in history, and dumb leftard on a forum.

If you have to FORCE people to do it, then it's not "benevolent and beneficial". You give people a choice of enrolling in Social Security, or not, and we'll see how the public feels about your "benevolent and beneficial" bull crap.[/QUOTE]

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is no law which prevents every person in this country from making retirement investments. Paying into SS & Medicare is like buying insurance, with one very important distinction - the money you put in you will get back if you live long enough; and if you live to a ripe old age you will receive more.

All this crap about how great investments are, are predicted on best case scenarios. In October 2008 reality hit home for too many Americans whose plans went awry. That home worth half a million dollars was underwater because the financial services industry offered 'wonderful' second and third mortgages, with a "What Me Worry" guarantee; and others experienced more paper money disappear as the stocks they held lost value.

But, they didn't lose the insurance they held in SS and Medicare. I suspect that those above are solely interested in getting their greedy little hands on other peoples money to play with - for a fee of course. Concern for the working men and women is their last consideration, as can be seen in the disdain they hold for those who haven't planned ahead. Yes, some people are lazy, some wait until tomorrow (which never comes), some earned too little and some spend everything they have on necessities or toys. Many will need the safety net and it's not going anywhere soon.

 

[healthmyths]

Yea and those "poor" misinformed low intelligent 401K losers.. were total dependents on the state to watch over them?
They couldn't make a decision about eating rat poisoning versus food? They didn't have driver's licenses that required them to make
decisions?
Come on! How totally stupid to believe common sense was totally lacking in these 401K losers!
OH wait...of course they had no common sense! They were losers!
Sorry. I have no pity for people that couldn't figure out that at age 60 their accumulated assets should be in the equities market!
Call them "greedy"...or call them dumb.. but one thing you can't say about them is they had any common sense...i.e. you don't put your
nest egg in equities when you are close to retirement!

You're an asshole as well as a phony. Your entire self righteous know-it-all attitude was barely tolerable, until you start attacking peoples' intelligence - people you don't know whose life experience are unique to them alone - that makes your posts not only hateful but foolish.

I am NOT against SS! I am against the phony premise that the majority of americans are too stupid to choose where THEIR money should go!
I am against the idiocy that the retirement age of 65 is still in place when that was the life span in the 30s which is why it was used!
Today the life span is 80!
I am for all people under AGE 55 to choose whether they can tell SS where to put their money be it into bank savings accounts or
high risk equities... it should be the person decision.
I am for the retirement age to be raised for ALL people under age 55 to age 69!
Given these three changes:
1) You can under age 55 keep the current method of SS
2) Or under age 55 choose to direct where the deduction will be put and based on HISTORY a person age 25 working 45 years
will put in over $300,000. Over 45 years putting initially into growth equities that historically appreciated at 7% a year by the time
the 25 is 50 they've accumulated nearly $1 million. At this point smart and most Americans put MOST of this secured investments
and the least in risk equities.
By the time then they are 69 their "nest egg" has grown to over $1 million. Putting most in an annuity paying them for life and
the rest for health/mad money they will also have something for their family.
3) Increase retirement to age 69.

But far from thinking as YOU do that most Americans are stupid, I trust most Americans to have more common sense then you for sure!
Most people know that the closer they are to retirement the more secure their nest egg should be... all but idiots like you think they
would leave their 401Ks in high risk equities at their time of approaching retirement!

I would say at least 1/3 of American adults lack the incentive to save for retirement. In spite of the tax benefits of retirement plans and employer contributions, 45 percent, or 38 million working-age households, do not have any retirement account assets. It's not that they are unaware of the need to save for retirement but rather there are higher priorities.

Jobs today simply don't last very long. The average employee spends only 4.4 years in a job. They leave with little retirement build up and quite often just spend it, particularly young workers when retirement savings yield the biggest rewards.

The average American family has over $15,000 in credit card debt, has emergency funds that will last less than 3 months, has little are no retirement savings, lives from paycheck to paycheck. 239 million are one financial setback away from economic ruin. The fact is most Americans do a lousy job of managing their finances. Give them the option to manage their social security funds and we will see a huge welfare program for retirees in 30 years who have mismanaged their investments.

People that successful manage their investments mistakenly think that everyone has the skills and incentives to do likewise.

No, that's not what we think. We think the left has created a system that reduces the incentives to do likewise.

The reason people live for the moment, is because culturally we have accepted a belief system that "Society should take care of me".

When you believe you are "entitled" to Health care, food, housing, clothing, and everything else... your incentive to make sure you have taken care of your own needs is lower.

I've met, and talked with people that openly said "Social Security will take care of me". In fact I had a roommate in my own home, who said as much. And this chick spent every dollar she earned. Paid on Friday, broke by Thursday.

She had no intention whatsoever of saving for retirement because she believed Social Security would take care of her.

If she knew that when she couldn't work anymore, she would be absolutely broke, she wouldn't blown every dollar she earned like that. She would have had 'incentive' to save.

You keep looking at a situation, created by the incentives you created, and then cry that people are not preparing for retirement.

Yes... we know... the problem is in your mirror. Your faulty ideology created this problem.... and now it's catching up with us.

Doesn't matter what your intentions are, or how much you think people need it. The system is going broke. Soviet Union is gone. Greece is bankrupt. Venezuela is starving. Cuba is impoverished. China adopted Capitalism. India is Corporate now.

Your system doesn't work. Whether is economy wide socialism, or just social pension systems. It fails every single time it's tried.

Apparently you're generalizing the topic from a debate over the merits of privatizing social security to a debate over elimination of government programs to force people to take personal responsibility for their lives

The problem with this theory is two fold. First, legislation can't be passed, which should end the debate. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and other major social programs are very popular with the public. You need only to look at past efforts to abolish them. Secondly, the theory is based on the idea that the nation would be better off without safety nets. There is no evidence to support that. It's analogous to removing the net below trapeze artists. You may get a better show without safety nets but you also may have some dead trapeze artists.

And apparently YOU DIDN"T READ anything... again generalizations...
Improve SS/Medicare by:
1) Starting with EVERYONE UNDER 55... NOT NOW to those approaching or on SS/Medicare but any under 55 this would apply.
2) Under 55 retirement raised to 69. After all 65 was the life span in 1930s when SS established today age 75 is the average life span.
3) Under 55 CHOICE... FREEDOM to CHOOSE!
a) Stay exactly as is... except age retirement 69.
b) Choose to manage accumulation but can not get borrow, cash in till retirement age.
1) choose to direct all accumulations into FDIC guaranteed savings account.. totally guaranteed.. totally secure.
2) Choose to direct most into secured investments like FDIC savings, treasuries (just as SS buys today!)...
3) Choose to invest in equities that have over 112 years appreciated at 7.5% a year.

CHOICE NOT dictated. Freedom to do what nearly half of all households are doing now ...BUT TAX sheltered using PRE-TAX income
invest in mutual funds..From 1926 through 2010, his Web site says, the index’s average annual return is 11.84 percent.
http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/dave-ramseys-12-solution/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I've attached a revised spreadsheet showing using that 11.84% over the 40 years of accumulation for a worker.
Again.. this is NOT possible to day with SS/Medicare but if half of all households use mutual funds and they had the
opportunity to direct to the same funds but using BEFORE TAX and tax sheltered monies... $3,442,889 at the above rates
for 20 year accumulation, moving age 46 to more secured lower rate of return and then age 65 total secured investments.

 

[healthmyths]

There is no law which prevents every person in this country from making retirement investments. Paying into SS & Medicare is like buying insurance, with one very important distinction - the money you put in you will get back if you live long enough; and if you live to a ripe old age you will receive more.

All this crap about how great investments are, are predicted on best case scenarios. In October 2008 reality hit home for too many Americans whose plans went awry. That home worth half a million dollars was underwater because the financial services industry offered 'wonderful' second and third mortgages, with a "What Me Worry" guarantee; and others experienced more paper money disappear as the stocks they held lost value.

But, they didn't lose the insurance they held in SS and Medicare. I suspect that those above are solely interested in getting their greedy little hands on other peoples money to play with - for a fee of course. Concern for the working men and women is their last consideration, as can be seen in the disdain they hold for those who haven't planned ahead. Yes, some people are lazy, some wait until tomorrow (which never comes), some earned too little and some spend everything they have on necessities or toys. Many will need the safety net and it's not going anywhere soon.

I have NO INTEREST in getting my hands on people's money.
I HAVE every interest that MY granddaughter can have the opportunity through simple compound interest into a simple savings account over her working years by putting instead of into the Federal budget, the money is put in to accumulating her money!

I've put this chart together showing how at her age 25 when she graduates and begins her career, simply putting the DEDUCTIONS for SS/Medicare into a FDIC secured savings account generating interest payment based on this web site. site:Find Top High Yield Bank Savings Accounts Online

Doing nothing but putting into a FDiC secured interest savings account over working to age 69........
ACCUMULATION at simple interest rate: $725,889

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is no law which prevents every person in this country from making retirement investments. Paying into SS & Medicare is like buying insurance, with one very important distinction - the money you put in you will get back if you live long enough; and if you live to a ripe old age you will receive more.

All this crap about how great investments are, are predicted on best case scenarios. In October 2008 reality hit home for too many Americans whose plans went awry. That home worth half a million dollars was underwater because the financial services industry offered 'wonderful' second and third mortgages, with a "What Me Worry" guarantee; and others experienced more paper money disappear as the stocks they held lost value.

But, they didn't lose the insurance they held in SS and Medicare. I suspect that those above are solely interested in getting their greedy little hands on other peoples money to play with - for a fee of course. Concern for the working men and women is their last consideration, as can be seen in the disdain they hold for those who haven't planned ahead. Yes, some people are lazy, some wait until tomorrow (which never comes), some earned too little and some spend everything they have on necessities or toys. Many will need the safety net and it's not going anywhere soon.

I have NO INTEREST in getting my hands on people's money.
I HAVE every interest that MY granddaughter can have the opportunity through simple compound interest into a simple savings account over her working years by putting instead of into the Federal budget, the money is put in to accumulating her money!

I've put this chart together showing how at her age 25 when she graduates and begins her career, simply putting the DEDUCTIONS for SS/Medicare into a FDIC secured savings account generating interest payment based on this web site. site:Find Top High Yield Bank Savings Accounts Online

Doing nothing but putting into a FDiC secured interest savings account over working to age 69........
ACCUMULATION at simple interest rate: $725,889
View attachment 32953

Maybe you don't want to get your hands on other people's money, but many do.

Both of my sons have Roth IRA's, regular IRA's and a retirement system from their employers. I was able to save enough to pay off my oldest sons college loans and provide the down payment for a home for my youngest son and his wife. Of course they both pay into SS and Medicare even though both have employer paid health insurance.

You know what a budget is? It's a plan, and plans go awry often. Putting something as important as one's future into a single source isn't a good idea (ask Bernie Madoff's victims). If they never need SS, that would be great. My wife and I don't, but we still receive those checks every month, and every month they go into a money market account and thus circulate through the local economy.