WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE A FUTURE PERSONAL INVESTMENT ACCOUNT,instead of government ...

Would you like government imposed social security,or personal control?


  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
With a private investment account, started with my first full time job, funded by the same amount of money that the government takes in Social Security taxes, with the most conservative investment vehicles used:

1. By the time I retired in my sixties, I would have well over a million dollars in that investment account, would likely have no debts, and would enjoy an income on the earnings off of my investments somewhere between $50k and $100k a year.

2. The money would be mine to use as I chose whenever I chose.

3. My spouse and/or children would inherit the balance of my account whenever I die or I can transfer it to them if I should have reason to do so.

With Social Security alone:

1. My annual income is a little over $13,000/year which in no way covers living expenses, much less much in the way of recreation or enjoyment of life.

2. I cannot tap the unused portion of whatever is in my social security 'account'.

3. There is no guarantee of benefits. If Congress deep sixed the program this month, I would lose ever penny I had paid into it.

4. When I die, there is a couple of hundred dollars in death benefits for my spouse--that wouldn't even cover the flowers at the funeral--and neither he nor my children otherwise receive a penny of what ZI paid in. If I die before Age 62, every penny I paid in is swallowed up by the government and my heirs get nothing.

For me it is a no brainer.
 
As they should be.

I'd call that poor decision making on their part.
When you have the freedom to make your own decisions, you then accept responsibility for the outcomes of same.

How so? I didnt see that as part of the plan.
Sounds like you're making an assumption based on facts not in evidence.
Well, since it's a hypothetical proposal, there are no facts in evidence.
Except those specified in the OP by OP - who has since clarified said specifics.

Yes, I'm making the assumption that those who have no money will be supported. Since they will have already spent their funds, those who have funds will be supporting them. Taxes will be levied to pay for it.
As noted, this has been excluded, and so your argument against the issue has been negated.

So your argument is that since the clarifications by the OP states that "no taxes will be levied" makes that the law of the land? Well, great, then why not hypothetically say that all taxes from here forth will not be levied on anyone with the middle initial of V? It's a pointless clarification because it does not reflect something that is possible in the real world, and therefore must be discarded out of hand. Sorry, still FAIL.
 
Evidence is there,josefk.
even ask meister
as i emailed him one of the recordings
would you like it emailed to you josefk?
i also have a verified article on that site verifying obamas membership the CHICAGO NEW PARTY.
Want to look stupid?
call your bluff,josefk.
try me.
 
WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE A FUTURE PERSONAL INVESTMENT ACCOUNT,instead of government ...

Why would I choose to have the government decide anything for for me?
Look at their track record, not very good....
besides I believe in personal responsibility!
 
With a private investment account, started with my first full time job, funded by the same amount of money that the government takes in Social Security taxes, with the most conservative investment vehicles used:

1. By the time I retired in my sixties, I would have well over a million dollars in that investment account, would likely have no debts, and would enjoy an income on the earnings off of my investments somewhere between $50k and $100k a year.

2. The money would be mine to use as I chose whenever I chose.

3. My spouse and/or children would inherit the balance of my account whenever I die or I can transfer it to them if I should have reason to do so.

With Social Security alone:

1. My annual income is a little over $13,000/year which in no way covers living expenses, much less much in the way of recreation or enjoyment of life.

2. I cannot tap the unused portion of whatever is in my social security 'account'.

3. There is no guarantee of benefits. If Congress deep sixed the program this month, I would lose ever penny I had paid into it.

4. When I die, there is a couple of hundred dollars in death benefits for my spouse--that wouldn't even cover the flowers at the funeral--and neither he nor my children otherwise receive a penny of what ZI paid in. If I die before Age 62, every penny I paid in is swallowed up by the government and my heirs get nothing.

For me it is a no brainer.

Bernie Madoff would have convinced you that he would have made your first choice a reality.
 
Billy,that leads to part 2.
eliminating the wilsonian federal income tax slavery
taxpayers will evolve to citizen government investors.
where with a partnership between citizens and leaders,following the citizens majority vote,
Each level of government jurisdiction is run like a business.
profitable and controlled by the citizen investors.
 
Well, since it's a hypothetical proposal, there are no facts in evidence.
Except those specified in the OP by OP - who has since clarified said specifics.

Yes, I'm making the assumption that those who have no money will be supported. Since they will have already spent their funds, those who have funds will be supporting them. Taxes will be levied to pay for it.
As noted, this has been excluded, and so your argument against the issue has been negated.
So your argument is that since the clarifications by the OP states that "no taxes will be levied" makes that the law of the land?
If that's the plan that he lad out, then yes. No reason that cannot happen.
Note that I read his clarification to mean that there will be no taxpayer support for those that did not sufficiently save through the plan he offered - that you are responsible for you and no one wll be forced to pay for your poor decisions.

It's a pointless clarification because it does not reflect something that is possible in the real world,
That's your assumption. Just because you assume so doesnt make it so, and since your argument against the idea is based on this assumptuon, your argument fails.
 
I plan to evolve this great nation from
GOVERNMENT IMPOSED TAX SLAVERY AND REDISTRIBUTION
to-
CITIZEN CONTROLLED GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS.
TAXPAYERS evolve to CITIZEN GOVERNMENT INVESTORS
WE WILL BE IN CHARGE.
WE WILL BE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES.
ELIMINATE THE VARIABLES OF GOVERNMENT WORKING UNTO ITSELF FOR ITS OWN INTERESTS.
 
At all levels of government leaders elected and appointed,can only work on direct voice of the citizens majority vote...and tjis is the start of destroying the establishment is freedom and independence.

Sound good to you?
 
We cannot be afraid of the browbeating of the communist powers in charge.
think independently.
think outside the box.
youll see this can work,at all levels.
 
Being a responsible citizen will be a profitable capital venture for all.
US CITIZENSHIP is a priviledge.
not a right.
 
Billy,that leads to part 2.
eliminating the wilsonian federal income tax slavery
taxpayers will evolve to citizen government investors.
where with a partnership between citizens and leaders,following the citizens majority vote,
Each level of government jurisdiction is run like a business.
profitable and controlled by the citizen investors.

Except those specified in the OP by OP - who has since clarified said specifics.


As noted, this has been excluded, and so your argument against the issue has been negated.
So your argument is that since the clarifications by the OP states that "no taxes will be levied" makes that the law of the land?
If that's the plan that he lad out, then yes. No reason that cannot happen.
Note that I read his clarification to mean that there will be no taxpayer support for those that did not sufficiently save through the plan he offered - that you are responsible for you and no one wll be forced to pay for your poor decisions.

It's a pointless clarification because it does not reflect something that is possible in the real world,
That's your assumption. Just because you assume so doesnt make it so, and since your argument against the idea is based on this assumptuon, your argument fails.

But you don't refute the assumption, you just dismiss it. You guys have fun in your fantasy land. I hope there's a lot of police protection there; starving people (even old people) can get pretty nasty.:lol:
 
Its not a fantasy land.
people must be responsible for themselves,and in doing so,without government interference,its most profitable as well.
 
If your not responsible for yourself,no one will do it.
myself anf other americans will not pay for self inflicted problems anymore.
 
Evidence is there,josefk.
even ask meister
as i emailed him one of the recordings
would you like it emailed to you josefk?
i also have a verified article on that site verifying obamas membership the CHICAGO NEW PARTY.
Want to look stupid?
call your bluff,josefk.
try me.

I'M calling YOUR bluff. I keep asking, yet you are unable or unwilling to deliver. Ball's in your court, Vampy.
 
Billy,that leads to part 2.
eliminating the wilsonian federal income tax slavery
taxpayers will evolve to citizen government investors.
where with a partnership between citizens and leaders,following the citizens majority vote,
Each level of government jurisdiction is run like a business.
profitable and controlled by the citizen investors.

If that's the plan that he lad out, then yes. No reason that cannot happen.
Note that I read his clarification to mean that there will be no taxpayer support for those that did not sufficiently save through the plan he offered - that you are responsible for you and no one wll be forced to pay for your poor decisions.

It's a pointless clarification because it does not reflect something that is possible in the real world,
That's your assumption. Just because you assume so doesnt make it so, and since your argument against the idea is based on this assumptuon, your argument fails.
But you don't refute the assumption, you just dismiss it
I dont need to refute it; you need to support it.

You guys have fun in your fantasy land.
Run along, son, and be sure to tuck that tail real tight.
 
Garfield-Laughing.gif
 
Obviously no ones reading this.
has nothing to do with freakin wallstreet.
its a personal future savings account.

How much money did your investments lose with the Bush recession? I lost a bundle.
And that's money I will never get back.

How much did your SS account lose with the Bush recession? Mine didn't lse even one penny.

Have you looked at the amount of interest your savings I paying right now? Hint: your money will make almost as much if you stuff it under your mattress.

fact is, you cannot understand your own silly ass rants because you don't live in the real world.
 

Forum List

Back
Top