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

[Billy000]

What is to stop social security to become a for profit nightmare? That's the real issue.

Explain why it would be a nightmare? Instead of costing the government in debt there would be a profit.
See the problem with people like you is you take the exceptional and make it the rule!
YES there is no question there have been Enrons in the world as well as Solyndras!
They are the exceptions!
Most "for profit" organizations are made up of people unlike you who are normal. Go to work. Do their job. Get their paycheck.
What is wrong with that? Frankly I have a whole lot more respect for the "for profits" because they contribute to the betterment of society versus the "non-profits" which are a DRAG!
Non profits constantly looking for hand outs ...from the for profits!
We have a President that has NEVER worked for a for profit organization and thus he detests as obviously you do "for profits".
How stupid. Obama was paid by the Annenberg Foundation that was formed by
Walter Hubert Annenberg (March 13, 1908 – October 1, 2002) was an American publisher, philanthropist, and diplomat most
of his wealth coming from TV Guide!
Think of it! You bought TV Guides. The evil profits paid Obama's salary. And forever the idiot Obama wants to do away with for profits!
And you again with your "evil for profit nightmare" are just as ignorant as Obama!

Actually if the wealthy were as taxed as they should be, we could better afford it. The wealthy could afford it too I promise. See the wealthy these days are investing less and less. Some investments that essentially becomes their personal wealth. They are keeping much of this money. 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth.

God it gets so old when you brain dead right tards automatically jump to the conclusion that I am some unemployed deadbeat. I'm sure the accusation makes you think "boy I sure showed him!" but in reality it just makes you look like a moron for making such a baseless and laughable claim.
I work 40 hours a week. Don't believe me? I don't care.

How do you not understand the nature of a business? They want to maximize profit as much as they can. That means the poor would soon not be able to afford it.

Obama is worth 9 million. He obviously finds wealthy people important.

So why don't YOU become wealthy?
Did you know that in 1850, the US was home to 19 millionaires.
But the years following the Civil War had seen a considerable increase in membership of that exclusive club.
By the end of the 1890's the number of millionaires in the US had swelled to more than 4,000.
A quarterly report prepared by the Economist Intelligence Unit on behalf of Barclays Wealth in 2007 estimated that there were 16,600,000 millionaires in the USA
Millionaire - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
4,000 millionaires in 1890 40 times that ..16.6 million millionaires in 2007!
Population in 1890 there were 62,947,714 or a ratio of 1 million for every 15,736 people.
Population in 2014 317,297,938 number of millionaires: 4,000,000 or a ratio of 1 millionaire for every 793 people!
U.S. Population 2014 317 Million and 7.1 Billion in the World - US News
Now of course idiots will say a million dollars isn't the same in 1890 as it is in 2014.
So what? My point is there is a greater opportunity to be a millionaire today then anytime before and all idiots like you want to do
is steal from those that have it!
You rob the rich idiots are like a pack of wild dogs. You see someone who has more then you and you like a wild dog tear at it!
How gauche. How uncivilized.
People like me (and I'm no millionaire!!!) laugh though at people like you because instead of doing something you bitch and moan
about the WEALTHY! Geez work at something other then a 40 hour job for someone else. Build your own fortune and today there
is more opportunities for it then ever! In fact IF YOU BILLY want an idea and a domain name I've registered that will if you want to work at it make you and me a millionaire I'll be happy to share! I'm just getting too old and lack the energy... but if you are still putting in 40 hours I'd be happy to share with you how we both could become millionaires from this idea.

You want to partner and become a millionaire???
Become a creator not a destroyer. Grow the pie bigger don't be like a dog and simply try to take away from someone else.
That's what animals do!

You people automatically jump to this retarded conclusion that I hate the wealthy or I hate capitalism. Everything is so black and white with you people. I am against privatizing SS therefore I must be against the free market. It's such childlike thinking. In reality I am perfectly okay with the free market and CEO's being well paid. What I do have a problem with is the average CEO making 350x more than the average worker. I just want to close the gap. I want people to be paid a wage they can live off of and one that keeps up with inflation. The last time a person making $10 an hour and could easily live of of it was in the 60's. That is how behind wages are. Does that seem fair to you considering how wealthy these job creators are in this day and age?

Well what other conclusion when you want 'The wealthy could afford it too I promise. See the wealthy these days are investing less and less. Some investments that essentially becomes their personal wealth. They are keeping much of this money. 1% of the top earners own 40% of the nation's wealth." That's pure and simple communism. Share the wealth as the wealthy have too much!
My goodness why do YOU think it is right to take from someone and give it someone else? That's theft!

Tax the wealthy...
Do you know that MOST wealthy people that have stocks are double taxed? Is that a new concept to you??
Is that fair? They get taxed on the Ordinary dividends as ordinary income which means they are taxed twice BECAUSE
when the corporation pays out in dividends it is AFTER the corporation has paid taxes.
So any shareholder in a corporation gets less of a dividend BECAUSE of corporate taxes and then when they get the dividend
they have to pay taxes as ordinary income....
But this goes way over your head I'm sure.

YOU are so uninformed about Americans income.
The AVERAGE hourly wage American makes $24.06 per hour !
FACT:
View attachment 32984

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf

See the below to see fewer and fewer people working at or below minimum wage..
In 1979 6,912,000 or 13.4% of all hourly workers or total hourly workers of 51,582,090
In 1989 3,162,000 or 50% LESS working at minimum wage of the 62,000,000 people working at hourly wage
In 2009 there were 3,572,000 people working at minimum wage of 72,897,959 at hourly wage or 4.9%
Finally in 2013 there were 3,300,000 working at minimum or 4.3% of 76,744,186 that work at hourly or 4.3%

I know these FACTS really send your little brain in a tizzy but this crap about poor Americans!
GEEZ look around you at you and your neighbors!
You are living the life KINGS 100s of years ago could NEVER imagine... reading right now words generated by someone else instantly!

When will you people quit bitching about issues of CHOICE for example:
I would have loved at age 25 to have the choice of putting the nearly $300,000 I've paid in to SS/Medicare into the market when I was 25 up to age 45... moved it to more secure and then at 65 at retirement... ...
Here is what would have happened IF I HAD HAD the choices which YOU want to deny people the right to choose!
Obviously I can't do it now BUT why are people like you thwarting my granddaughter from have a choice?
From her accumulating by forced savings over her future career millions of dollars for HER to have... and not have it going
to the Federal government that spends it on
My point is people should have the CHOICE and forcing them to pump money back into the Federal government for some cubicle dweller amidst the Ebola crisis, the government’s premier health agencies are burning their taxpayer funded budgets on wasteful programs faster than drunken monkeys. Based on a recent $3.2 million NIH study focused exclusively on getting monkeys drunk, that’s an analogy researchers should readily understand. -

View attachment 32987

How do you not see the stupidity in saying raising taxes is communism? Revenue is what pays the nation's bills. Revenue as a percentage of GDP is at 16%. In 2000 it was at 20%. That means we are BORROWING MONEY when it comes to government expenses. Tax cuts for the wealthy don't do shit to stimulate substantial economic growth. If they did, Bush's ridiculous cuts would have helped the recession in his early presidency and prevented the Great Recession. Instead, we lost 8 million jobs while the revenue as percentage of GDP was at an historic low (15%). Tell me. Why was job growth under Bush so pathetic?

God I already fucking explained to you before about your stupidity on the stats on the minimum wage. Yes assclown a small percentage of the population make the federal wage. However MILLIONS of Americans make less than 10 an hour. According to the CBO, raising the minimum wage would lift 16 million people out of poverty. Read this slowly will you? If you raised the minimum wage to $10 an hour, all of the wages below that would go up. Good god. Your scope is as small as your brain power dude. Pay attention.

The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income Congressional Budget Office

Can you live on less than 10 an hour if you supported yourself entirely or you had kids? NO YOU CANT.

 

[bripat9643]

[...]

Of course it's a ponzi scheme. You'd have to be a brainless idiotic leftard to not realize that.

[...]

A Ponzi scheme is a progressive process in which the exponential projection is limited by the finite number of eligible participants, as in the example of Bernie Madoff's operation. The Social Security Program operates with an infinite, non-exponential participant projection -- which is why it has been functioning flawlessly since 1935.

That isn't what defines a Ponzi scheme. If it's been working so "flawlessly," then why have they reduced benefits and increased the FICA tax multiple times?

The only problem with Social Security's current status is failure to adapt to increasing life-expectancy by increasing eligibility age. As it is, the Program will function status-quo without any adjustments until 2037. But appropriate adjustments will ensure its flawless progress indefinitely.

Funny how private retirement vehicles have no such problem? Furthermore, how can it have a problem if it's working "flawlessly?" "Adjustments" are made because a program has flaws. If it had no flaws, it wouldn't need any "adjustments."

Simply bleating that taxes have been reduced and benefits too is not fitting the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

They changed the terms of the deal after the fact. If a private company did that, the company officers would all go to prison.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course it's a ponzi scheme. You'd have to be a brainless idiotic leftard to not realize that.

You take money from X to pay for W, and the take money from Y to pay for X, and then take from Z to pay for Y.

That is EXACTLY how a ponzi scheme works. Bernie Madoff, got money from new investors to pay for old investors, then money from newer investors to pay for the new investors, than he ran out of investors to pay for the newer investors, and the system crashed.

That is EXACTLY what is happening in Social Security, and you are just too plain stupid to figure it out.

The 60s - 70s generation paid for the WW2 generation. Then the 80s - 90s Generation is paying the 60s - 70s generation. Now the Current generation is trying to be forced to pay for the 80s - 90s Generation, except we're starting to refuse to do it.

So instead they are cutting benefits. Raise the retirement age to 70 or higher.

Why? Can't find enough workers to pay for the takers. To many people drinking the water, and not enough carrying it. Just like Madoff, the system is running out of other people's money to take.

If you think it's a really not a Ponzi scheme, then you are just ignorant. Flat out, ignorant.

A PonzI Scheme is a fraudulent act ; the social security act is law. Are you really that dumb, or are you a liar?

If we made a law that you are an idiot, that would make it true huh? We can just legislate reality? If they passed a law that "Madoff investment was not a ponzi scheme", then it wouldn't be, not because it was any different than a ponzi scheme, because the law said it wasn't?

You realize that you are a perfect character in Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged? The age of reason is dead, and because the law says SS is not a ponzi scheme, then it isn't... because we said so.... therefore it's not.... no matter how functionally it is.

Moron, there is no FRAUD, thus it is not a crime. No one is lead to believe that SS is all one needs in retirement. Some people choose to rely solely on SS, some need to do to circumstances.

I didn't say it was a crime stupid. You are the dumbest idiot I gave a chance to lately. You are proving yourself not worth reading.

Doesn't matter if it's a fraud or not.

Ponzi Schemes are Ponzi schemes, because of how they work. Take from Y to pay X, take from Z to pay Y. That's how it works.

And honestly.... IT IS FRAUDULENT. When you get your Social Security statement, which I happen to have, it says that I have an account with money in it.

Fact: I don't have an account with money in it. If I do, tell me the bank where the account is, where the money is located? Where are the investments? Where is my ROI statement? Doesn't exist.

With my Mutual fund, I can look up the stocks that are in my portfolio, and see I have stock in Walmart, Exxon, Ford, and a host of others. Actual assets, in an actual account, with *MY* name on it. ANd if I so choose, I can cash those assets out, and take my money back.... because it is *MY* money.

Social Security..... can't do any of that. It's a fraud. It's not real.

And also, much like a Ponzi Scheme, as the scheme runs out of money, people stop getting their dues. What do you think raising the retirement age to 70 is? It's exactly what I would expect from a ponzi scheme.

Your lack of equanimity is only superceded by your arrogance. SS has never gone insolvent, and unless government becomes much less democratic and more plutocratic it never will.

SS has been insolvent multiple times. Congress raised the FICA tax because SS didn't have enough money to pay its bills. Banks can arbitrarily increase your mortgage rate because they made too many bad loans. If they don't have enough revenue to meet the outgo, they are bankrupt. That's what it means to be bankrupt. The apologists for Social Security like to compare it to private retirement programs, but they think it gets to play by its own special set of rules.

 

[Wry Catcher]

[...]

Of course it's a ponzi scheme. You'd have to be a brainless idiotic leftard to not realize that.

[...]

A Ponzi scheme is a progressive process in which the exponential projection is limited by the finite number of eligible participants, as in the example of Bernie Madoff's operation. The Social Security Program operates with an infinite, non-exponential participant projection -- which is why it has been functioning flawlessly since 1935.

That isn't what defines a Ponzi scheme. If it's been working so "flawlessly," then why have they reduced benefits and increased the FICA tax multiple times?

The only problem with Social Security's current status is failure to adapt to increasing life-expectancy by increasing eligibility age. As it is, the Program will function status-quo without any adjustments until 2037. But appropriate adjustments will ensure its flawless progress indefinitely.

Funny how private retirement vehicles have no such problem? Furthermore, how can it have a problem if it's working "flawlessly?" "Adjustments" are made because a program has flaws. If it had no flaws, it wouldn't need any "adjustments."

Simply bleating that taxes have been reduced and benefits too is not fitting the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

They changed the terms of the deal after the fact. If a private company did that, the company officers would all go to prison.

LOL, well, I guess this dumb shit ^^^ never had a credit card. Terms and Conditions change often and no company officers go to prison.

 

[bripat9643]

[...]

Of course it's a ponzi scheme. You'd have to be a brainless idiotic leftard to not realize that.

[...]

A Ponzi scheme is a progressive process in which the exponential projection is limited by the finite number of eligible participants, as in the example of Bernie Madoff's operation. The Social Security Program operates with an infinite, non-exponential participant projection -- which is why it has been functioning flawlessly since 1935.

That isn't what defines a Ponzi scheme. If it's been working so "flawlessly," then why have they reduced benefits and increased the FICA tax multiple times?

The only problem with Social Security's current status is failure to adapt to increasing life-expectancy by increasing eligibility age. As it is, the Program will function status-quo without any adjustments until 2037. But appropriate adjustments will ensure its flawless progress indefinitely.

Funny how private retirement vehicles have no such problem? Furthermore, how can it have a problem if it's working "flawlessly?" "Adjustments" are made because a program has flaws. If it had no flaws, it wouldn't need any "adjustments."

Simply bleating that taxes have been reduced and benefits too is not fitting the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

They changed the terms of the deal after the fact. If a private company did that, the company officers would all go to prison.

LOL, well, I guess this dumb shit ^^^ never had a credit card. Terms and Conditions change often and no company officers go to prison.

It doesn't change on the money you have already borrowed, and it doesn't change without explicit terms in your agreement saying the bank can change the terms. When and under what circumstances the terms can change is also specified in your agreement.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A Ponzi scheme is a progressive process in which the exponential projection is limited by the finite number of eligible participants, as in the example of Bernie Madoff's operation. The Social Security Program operates with an infinite, non-exponential participant projection -- which is why it has been functioning flawlessly since 1935.

That isn't what defines a Ponzi scheme. If it's been working so "flawlessly," then why have they reduced benefits and increased the FICA tax multiple times?

The only problem with Social Security's current status is failure to adapt to increasing life-expectancy by increasing eligibility age. As it is, the Program will function status-quo without any adjustments until 2037. But appropriate adjustments will ensure its flawless progress indefinitely.

Funny how private retirement vehicles have no such problem? Furthermore, how can it have a problem if it's working "flawlessly?" "Adjustments" are made because a program has flaws. If it had no flaws, it wouldn't need any "adjustments."

Simply bleating that taxes have been reduced and benefits too is not fitting the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

They changed the terms of the deal after the fact. If a private company did that, the company officers would all go to prison.

LOL, well, I guess this dumb shit ^^^ never had a credit card. Terms and Conditions change often and no company officers go to prison.

It doesn't change on the money you have already borrowed, and it doesn't change without explicit terms in your agreement saying the bank can change the terms. When and under what circumstances the terms can change is also specified in your agreement.

LOL, and your point is? You made a stupid blanket statement, now that you are busted you try to spin your way out of it. Loser.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That isn't what defines a Ponzi scheme. If it's been working so "flawlessly," then why have they reduced benefits and increased the FICA tax multiple times?

Funny how private retirement vehicles have no such problem? Furthermore, how can it have a problem if it's working "flawlessly?" "Adjustments" are made because a program has flaws. If it had no flaws, it wouldn't need any "adjustments."

Simply bleating that taxes have been reduced and benefits too is not fitting the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

They changed the terms of the deal after the fact. If a private company did that, the company officers would all go to prison.

LOL, well, I guess this dumb shit ^^^ never had a credit card. Terms and Conditions change often and no company officers go to prison.

It doesn't change on the money you have already borrowed, and it doesn't change without explicit terms in your agreement saying the bank can change the terms. When and under what circumstances the terms can change is also specified in your agreement.

LOL, and your point is? You made a stupid blanket statement, now that you are busted you try to spin your way out of it. Loser.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, banks do it, so does the SSA:

Trustees Report Summary

 

[bripat9643]

That isn't what defines a Ponzi scheme. If it's been working so "flawlessly," then why have they reduced benefits and increased the FICA tax multiple times?

Funny how private retirement vehicles have no such problem? Furthermore, how can it have a problem if it's working "flawlessly?" "Adjustments" are made because a program has flaws. If it had no flaws, it wouldn't need any "adjustments."

Simply bleating that taxes have been reduced and benefits too is not fitting the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

They changed the terms of the deal after the fact. If a private company did that, the company officers would all go to prison.

LOL, well, I guess this dumb shit ^^^ never had a credit card. Terms and Conditions change often and no company officers go to prison.

It doesn't change on the money you have already borrowed, and it doesn't change without explicit terms in your agreement saying the bank can change the terms. When and under what circumstances the terms can change is also specified in your agreement.

LOL, and your point is? You made a stupid blanket statement, now that you are busted you try to spin your way out of it. Loser.

It's still true. SS has effectively declared bankruptcy multiple times.

 

[bripat9643]

So, banks do it, so does the SSA:

Trustees Report Summary

No they don't. The rate on your mortgage doesn't change.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Simply bleating that taxes have been reduced and benefits too is not fitting the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

They changed the terms of the deal after the fact. If a private company did that, the company officers would all go to prison.

LOL, well, I guess this dumb shit ^^^ never had a credit card. Terms and Conditions change often and no company officers go to prison.

It doesn't change on the money you have already borrowed, and it doesn't change without explicit terms in your agreement saying the bank can change the terms. When and under what circumstances the terms can change is also specified in your agreement.

LOL, and your point is? You made a stupid blanket statement, now that you are busted you try to spin your way out of it. Loser.

It's still true. SS has effectively declared bankruptcy multiple times.

Liar!

"It is a logical impossibility for Social Security to go bankrupt. We can voluntarily choose to suspend or eliminate the program, but it could never fail because it “ran out of money.”

Take your "effectively" and shove it up your lying ass.

See: Why Social Security Cannot Go Bankrupt - Forbes

 

[Flopper]

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.
View attachment 32951

I see three problems with your plan.
1. Many younger workers, under 35 would use their freedom of choice not to invest the funds at all, then when there're older they will invest in risky investments to make up for the years they didn't invest. This is exactly what's happening today with tax sheltered retirement plans.
2. Although for planning purposes, we project 25, 35, or 40 years to accumulate savings for retirement but in reality, we never know how long we might have to work. If we become disable, there may be little or no retirement savings to support the family. Even if you hang on for 35 years or so, the unthinkable can happen. A stock market crash followed by years of poor market performance can leave you nothing to live on.
3. Lastly, most Americans want security. They want assurance that there will be something there when they can no longer work. Even if they follow bad investment advice and lose their money or their husband goes nuts and invests everything in commonly futures, they won't be homeless or depending on relatives to survive when they can't work. This is why American have overwhelming supported social security. With the demise of pension plans and more uncertainly than every about future employment, people are becoming much more concerned with security.

1. Exaggeration ALERT!!!!..."Many younger under 35.." how crappy to make such a GUESS!
But you are so wrong! The under 55 worker has a choice:
a) keep the same method i.e. paid in SS pays out no choices nothing just like it is now!
b) BUT if the "under 35" decides to CHOOSE the self directed option then:
monies will be deducted and THEN where would they go?
There is a decision the under 35 has to make either Put it into the bank savings or invest!
So your point is is moot in that they either stay with traditional and have no responsibilities guess what that's what happens today!
Or they make the decision to put into secured or appreciation... BUT it is their CHOICE and has to be done...as the monies will be
going somewhere!!!
2. Guess you never heard of disability insurance? Workman's comp?

3. Lastly YOU are interpreting "MOST AMERICANS want security"..So putting your entire future in the hands of the government is your
solution? My goodness what a good little worker ant! Even more important that the worker has the choice!
Why is giving people choice YOUR decision? Or the Government's decision???

Like most people that hate capitalism, hate self determination, self reliance you think YOU have the answers!

I don't have the answers for these people other then at least give them the choice!
They should be given the chance to succeed WHICH by the way you totally ignore the FACT THAT MOST DO!
Are you aware that half the household in america have mutual funds?
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
Are you aware that people today have MORE assets then people did in the 30s?

But please don't exaggerate with assumptions that most Americans are stupid and can't use their forced savings to accumulate
assets that can't be touched till retirement. You keep forgetting the majority of people are capable....

I'm not saying most American are stupid. I'm saying most Americans have higher priorities than preparing for retirement such as putting food on the table, providing health and dental care for the family, helping their kids through college. Given a choice most American choose family over retirement.

I didn't understand that your plan forced people to save for retirement. However, my objection remains the same. If people invest in the market and lose due to poor advice or lack of knowledge, and economic depression or whatever, the government will end up providing for them and their families and all that money will be coming out of the pockets of taxpayers. Better to provide a safety net paid by the employee and employer so everyone will be assured at least subsistence at retirement, disability if they can't work, income for the family if they die prematurely.

I guess I feel strongly about this because I've seen first had what happens when the breadwinner of the family fails to invest retirement funds wisely. My son in-law changed jobs a number of times cashing in his retirement to pay bills while he was unemployed. He died suddenly two years ago leaving my daughter and four young kids a broken down car, a mortgage, and $3,000 in the bank. I was faced with having to take the whole into my apartment to keep them off the streets. Luckily, my son in-law had 23 years in social security and when he worked he had a pretty high salary. Thanks to social security, the family has an apartment to live in and food on the table. She has a part time job and is finishing her degree and will be able to earn a living next year. Under your plan, my daughter and her family would be dispute and homeless. The tax payer would be providing them food stamps and welfare money to live on.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

If your insurance company said that you had to pay higher premiums this year, not because your benefits went up, but rather because you earned more..... how long would you keep that policy? Answer? Doesn't matter because with Social Security, you have no choice in the matter.

[...]

But what if that insurance company said you had to pay higher premiums because you earned more -- but you will get back every penny, and probably a lot more, whether you need it or not, provided you don't die early?

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Or how about the fact that Social Security is a regressive tax, that generally penalizes those on the lowest income level greater than those at the top? At the same time, until you reach the top income levels, you get to pay more and more for only mildly better benefits.

[...]

FICA contributions are not a levied tax. They are premiums paid into a mutually beneficial and protective insurance program, premiums which eventually will be returned to the contributor.

Taxes, regressive or otherwise, are never repaid. This "regressive tax" nonsense is nothing but corporatist rhetoric put forth by multi-millionaire propagandists such as Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al.

The money you pay to your auto insurer is not a tax. Nor do you ever get a penny of it back unless you have a far more costly mishap.

 

[Andylusion]

Of course it's a ponzi scheme. You'd have to be a brainless idiotic leftard to not realize that.

You take money from X to pay for W, and the take money from Y to pay for X, and then take from Z to pay for Y.

That is EXACTLY how a ponzi scheme works. Bernie Madoff, got money from new investors to pay for old investors, then money from newer investors to pay for the new investors, than he ran out of investors to pay for the newer investors, and the system crashed.

That is EXACTLY what is happening in Social Security, and you are just too plain stupid to figure it out.

The 60s - 70s generation paid for the WW2 generation. Then the 80s - 90s Generation is paying the 60s - 70s generation. Now the Current generation is trying to be forced to pay for the 80s - 90s Generation, except we're starting to refuse to do it.

So instead they are cutting benefits. Raise the retirement age to 70 or higher.

Why? Can't find enough workers to pay for the takers. To many people drinking the water, and not enough carrying it. Just like Madoff, the system is running out of other people's money to take.

If you think it's a really not a Ponzi scheme, then you are just ignorant. Flat out, ignorant.

A PonzI Scheme is a fraudulent act ; the social security act is law. Are you really that dumb, or are you a liar?

If we made a law that you are an idiot, that would make it true huh? We can just legislate reality? If they passed a law that "Madoff investment was not a ponzi scheme", then it wouldn't be, not because it was any different than a ponzi scheme, because the law said it wasn't?

You realize that you are a perfect character in Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged? The age of reason is dead, and because the law says SS is not a ponzi scheme, then it isn't... because we said so.... therefore it's not.... no matter how functionally it is.

Moron, there is no FRAUD, thus it is not a crime. No one is lead to believe that SS is all one needs in retirement. Some people choose to rely solely on SS, some need to do to circumstances.

I didn't say it was a crime stupid. You are the dumbest idiot I gave a chance to lately. You are proving yourself not worth reading.

Doesn't matter if it's a fraud or not.

Ponzi Schemes are Ponzi schemes, because of how they work. Take from Y to pay X, take from Z to pay Y. That's how it works.

And honestly.... IT IS FRAUDULENT. When you get your Social Security statement, which I happen to have, it says that I have an account with money in it.

Fact: I don't have an account with money in it. If I do, tell me the bank where the account is, where the money is located? Where are the investments? Where is my ROI statement? Doesn't exist.

With my Mutual fund, I can look up the stocks that are in my portfolio, and see I have stock in Walmart, Exxon, Ford, and a host of others. Actual assets, in an actual account, with *MY* name on it. ANd if I so choose, I can cash those assets out, and take my money back.... because it is *MY* money.

Social Security..... can't do any of that. It's a fraud. It's not real.

And also, much like a Ponzi Scheme, as the scheme runs out of money, people stop getting their dues. What do you think raising the retirement age to 70 is? It's exactly what I would expect from a ponzi scheme.

Your lack of equanimity is only superceded by your arrogance. SS has never gone insolvent, and unless government becomes much less democratic and more plutocratic it never will.

Again.... if you had an insurance policy, OR a retirement fund, in which the company said "we're going to increase premiums every month, and cut benefits every month.... you would never have that policy or fund.

If I'm your insurance broker, and I said "Yeah I know you have never had an accident, but we're going to charge you $300 more each month, and cut your liability coverage by $100,000. Oh and we're going to do the same thing next year, and the year after."

You would NEVER have such a coverage.

If I'm your retirement fund adviser, and I said "Ok we need to up your deposits by $300 a month, and when you retire, we're going to pay out $200 less. And we're going to do that next year and the year after."

You would never buy such a retirement fund. Never. No one would.

Social Security used to be 1% tax. It's now a 15% tax.

Social Security used to pay out in full by age 62. Soon it will be 70.

Are you getting this? Costs are going up, and benefits are going down.... and yet....

Trustees Report Summary

Social Security’s Disability Insurance (DI) program satisfies neither the Trustees’ long-range test of close actuarial balance nor their short-range test of financial adequacy and faces the most immediate financing shortfall of any of the separate trust funds. DI Trust Fund reserves expressed as a percent of annual cost (the trust fund ratio) declined to 62 percent at the beginning of 2014, and the Trustees project trust fund depletion late in 2016.

Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010 and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The Trustees project that this annual cash-flow deficit will average about $77 billion between 2014 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to its sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete while the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers

Clearly, by everyone, including the Government's own estimates, the fund is going broke, as it has been for several years now, and was projected to for almost a decade.

But you have pointed out, it has never actually gone insolvent.

Yes. You are right. It has not.... precisely because of the points I made above. No ponzi scheme would ever go insolvent if the people running the ponzi scheme could do three things.

If Bernie Madoff could:

A: Force people to keep paying into the system.
B: Arbitrarily increase payments into the system by force.
C: Arbitrarily decrease payouts from the system.

Yeah, Barnie Madoff's ponzi scheme would still be running perfectly strong today.

Any Ponzi scheme can last forever, if you can force people to pay into it, force people to pay more into it, and cut the benefits to people receiving from it. Heck, I'll run your retirement system if you let me have those abilities.

There is only one reason Social Security has not directly gone broke.... we can't opt-out, we've have been forced to pay more, and we been given less and less.

You prevent government from just demanding more and more of your money in taxes.... you prevent government from cutting the benefits.... you force government to allow us to opt-out of Social Security, and I promise you with no shred of doubt, the system will be absolutely bankrupt in 10 years... if that long.

 

[Andylusion]

[...]

If your insurance company said that you had to pay higher premiums this year, not because your benefits went up, but rather because you earned more..... how long would you keep that policy? Answer? Doesn't matter because with Social Security, you have no choice in the matter.

[...]

But what if that insurance company said you had to pay higher premiums because you earned more -- but you will get back every penny, and probably a lot more, whether you need it or not, provided you don't die early?

But you don't from Social Security.

Social Security Benefits Less Than What Workers Put In TIME.com

Social Security is a lousy investment for the average worker. People retiring today will be among the first generation of workers to pay more in Social Security taxes than they receive in benefits over the course of their lives, according to a new analysis by the Associated Press.
Looking at numbers from an Urban Institute study, the AP found that a married couple retiring in 2011 after both spouses earned average income during their lives paid total Social Security taxes of $598,000. They can expect to collect $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85. This is another landmark turning point sure to enliven the debate over how to fix Social Security, which without changes will be insolvent by 2033.

Note, that without change, Social Security will be insolvent by 2033. Which implies.... it's going to change. Now if people don't get back what they put in TODAY under a system that is going insolvent..... which way do you think it's going to go after they change it? Higher taxes, and lower payouts. Meaning even fewer are going to get out what they put in.

Another look at Urban Institute numbers suggests that the average working family still enjoys a positive return when factoring in Medicare benefits.

And that's true. Medicare is a fairly large benefit as it stands. Of course as it stands, it's fiscally far worse than Social Security. Which means even larger cuts, or higher taxes will be required to shore that up.

So, while your question is a nifty hypothetical, it's not even close to the reality.

And EVEN THEN.... there is a 'return on investment' with Social Security. It's terrible. The ROI is horrid. You'd almost be better putting your money in CDs.

At least with CDs, if you die, your spouse gets 100% of the money, instead of the 55% or whatever it is SS pays out. And if you retire early, you don't forfeit a chunk of your money, and if you decide later to get a retirement job, you are not penalized for working.

That's the most hideous to me. Only with the brutal tyranny of leftist government, does one forfeit the money he is supposedly due, because he decides to work beyond retirement. And only with that level of tyranny, does a man then have to pay taxes, into the very system whose benefits he is disqualified from receiving, by working and paying that tax.

Think about that. Because you are working, and producing wealth for the country... you are forced to pay taxes into a system whose benefits you are disqualified from getting..... because you work. That's the ugly truth about the system you support. It's not just bad, it's immoral and evil.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

There was never a demand for social security. It had to be marketed and packaged to the public. No one wanted Social Security, until they claimed it wouldn't cost much, and there would be tons of benefits. But that 1% tax, is a far cry from the 15% we enjoy paying government today.

[...]

If you have parents or grand-parents who lived through the Great Depression, but were not among the rich, they will tell you what a mistaken concept that is.

The fact is the American People of that era were so pummeled and intimidated by its torturous miseries a proposed program that promised to prevent repetition of the painful and tragic reality of millions of homeless and starving seniors dying on the streets, which was one of the most glaring agonies of that terrible time, was welcomed without the slightest protest. It was in fact one of the reasons for FDR's enormous popularity.

You buy car insurance to offset one kind of potential tragedy. You buy Social Security participation to offset another kind -- and you get your money back. And all it really costs is a small percentage of your petit capitalist ambitions. Unless you are earning a minimal income there is nothing preventing you from still investing in a 401k plan -- as many people do.

 

[Andylusion]

[...]

Or how about the fact that Social Security is a regressive tax, that generally penalizes those on the lowest income level greater than those at the top? At the same time, until you reach the top income levels, you get to pay more and more for only mildly better benefits.

[...]

FICA contributions are not a levied tax. They are premiums paid into a mutually beneficial and protective insurance program which will be returned to the contributor.

Taxes, regressive or otherwise, are never repaid. This "regressive tax" nonsense is nothing but corporatist rhetoric put forth by multi-millionaire propagandists such as Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al.

The money you pay to your auto insurer is not a tax. Nor do you ever get a penny of it back unless you have a far more costly mishap.

Then if they are premiums, which denote an option, a voluntary agreement between two parties in exchange of risk for a premium.... if it is a Premium, then I wish to cancel my coverage.

Can I do that? Yes or no? If no, then it is not a premium. It's is a tax, which denotes the lack of voluntary choice, the lack of an option. Something compelled by force.

You don't get every penny back form Social Security. So that is irrelevant.

It is a regressive tax, according to my calculator. If you can't figure that out, then you are just a product of public schools.

 

[Andylusion]

[...]

There was never a demand for social security. It had to be marketed and packaged to the public. No one wanted Social Security, until they claimed it wouldn't cost much, and there would be tons of benefits. But that 1% tax, is a far cry from the 15% we enjoy paying government today.

[...]

If you have parents or grand-parents who lived through the Great Depression, but were not among the rich, they will tell you what a mistaken concept that is.

The fact is the American People of that era were so pummeled and intimidated by its torturous miseries a proposed program that promised to prevent repetition of the painful and tragic reality of millions of homeless and starving seniors dying on the streets, which was one of the most glaring agonies of that terrible time, was welcomed without the slightest protest. It was in fact one of the reasons for FDR's enormous popularity.

You buy car insurance to offset one kind of potential tragedy. You buy Social Security participation to offset another kind -- and you get your money back. And all it really costs is a small percentage of your petit capitalist ambitions. Unless you are earning a minimal income there is nothing preventing you from still investing in a 401k plan -- as many people do.

No, you don't get your money back. You are just ignorant. I already posted proof of such. Further, I don't "buy" social security. The act of 'buying' again, implies choice. I never once asked to purchase Social Security, and if I had ever been, I would have refused it, not asked for it. I'd love to the option to 'buy' Social Security. Give me that option, and I'll use the option *not* to buy Social Security.

I have talked with people who lived through the great depression, and they did tell me that it was not demanded. Both my grand mothers, had similar accounts. Neither wanted it. Yes, I get that it promised a bunch of things. Which is exactly what I said. Government marketed, and drummed up support for Social Security, because it didn't exist before. They made endless promises about how it would only cost 1% in taxes, and how your Social Security number would never be used for identification and tracking purposes.

I know tons about how SS was hyped and marketed, and fooled the public into support it. But the fact is, the demand for such a system never existed before. You just don't know what your are talking about.

 

[MikeK]

Well which system is better.... The current system were people are held in poverty by high taxes their entire life, so they can get $12,000 a year and live in object poverty until they die?

Or a system where people can keep their own money, and determine their own destiny?

[...]

Those who will live on the $12,000 they will get from Social Security are the same people who would be living off the public dole were it not for Social Security. They are not typical.

I consider myself to be a rather ordinary wage earner. I paid into Social Security all my working life -- but I also invested in U.S. Savings Bonds -- per my father's advice. His advice also encouraged me to avoid debt and to seek a secure job with a good pension.

I presently enjoy a generous civil service pension which is supplemented by Social Security and a rotating stack of bonds, and I have zero debts.

I'm not rich but I am secure and comfortable -- much thanks owing to the monthly deposit in my checking account by the Social Security Administration, which by now has repaid every penny I contributed and will continue until I die. And I know a few people whose retirement plans were severely affected by the 2008 collapse and who praise Social Security for keeping them afloat -- which is exactly what it was intended to do.

Perhaps I would have a bit more money if Social Security didn't exist and I had managed to competently manage a stock portfolio. But the bottom line is I am quite content with the way things are.