36% have no nest egg- thank god SS is in good shape...26% age 50-64...

[SteadyMercury]

We lost a big chunk of our investments with the Bush crash but what if all the money in our SS accounts had been in the stock market?

You'd have gained it back and then some?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yet the interest charged by the banks are many times .002%. The banks are doing very well, are they not? Fees go up, rates don't go down and those too big to fail continue to grow. Let's not blame the government for this truth, it is the greed of the private sector.

They are. And for a reason. Who exactly sanctioned an American 12 Charter private banking system to run the currency?

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, it doesn't.

Another sheep who refuses to do the math.

I've given countless examples of how even a person of modest income can create real wealth with the money confiscated for SS but you sheep don't bother to listen

ooo ooo Then you must be a real 1%-er, right?

So, pray tell, just what are these "countless" ways of "creating real wealth with the money confiscated for SS"?

You are DEFINITELY a 1%-er, dude. You are DEFINITELY in the bottom 1% of intelligence!

 

[Jarlaxle]

People are trying to save beyond SS but since I have been alive (76 years now) it has never been harder to save or put money away as wages are stagnated and prices are rising. People are squeezing by... just barely. Its hard to be able to afford to have a family even with two good incomes. Perhaps the answer is for middle class people not to have kids.

Don't forget that interest on savings is basically nothing.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Its hard to be able to afford to have a family even with two good incomes.

This isn't true. People's expectations of how much crap they need to have is what has changed, two "good incomes" can still afford a family.

 

[Spoonman]

You're in support of the Republican Creed: "I've got mine, fuck the rest of you!"

more like i earned mine, its about time you got out and earn yours too

Not everyone who needs government assistance is a slacker.

lets be honest, most are. and the programs were desiged for those who need temporary help. not those who make it a lifestyle generation after generation.

Let's be honest, describe the people who, "who make it a lifestyle generation after generation". Then, let's discuss the reasons (plural) why that might be.

for starters lets look at inner city blacks. so lets discuss the reasons and how have these programs gotten them out of the cycle?

 

[boedicca]

Don't forget that interest on savings is basically nothing.

It wasn't that way before the Fed did the QE-ZIRP maneuver.

 

[Disir]

Thanks for you thoughtless comment.

The right could run on a platform of:

1. Protect it in it's current form for those who have put into it. They deserve (even though the SCOTUS says that isn't the case) it.
2. Modify the system so that it looks more like banking. You get a statement of how much you put in. You are entitled to that much out. Your "base" would be invested, as it is now, in simple safe, securities and it would be guaranteed. If you want to put more in because you can't get a 401K, then you can. This could go to a second tier where you would have more investment options.
3. If you are a deadbeat dad, then mom (via the courts) can tap into your S.S. and you will have less for retirement. Simple.
4. If you want out, you can opt out if you follow prescribed formulas for retirement planning and you understand that you won't be getting an S.S. when you retire. If that means catfood and a cardboard box.....well, enjoy it.

So why don't you go screw yourself for being such an asswipe.

The vast majority would be better off with a Chilean type system of privatized retirement accounts.

The account belongs to the individual, who decides how to invest it, and can leave it to his or her heirs. The Government cannot borrow against it with fake lockbox IOU taxes on future generations.

No. The Chilean system failed so badly that they have had to reform it. Furthermore, the fees and costs associated with the privatization have harmed it tremendously.

 

[Youch]

If conservatism is so great then why did the 5-4 supreme court have to give it's blessing on citizens united, meaning unlimited financing of elections? This just guarantees that a liberal won't get elected. Big money will always side with corporate democrats or republicans.

Nine lifers, activists many, deciding the course of our society isn't exactly a great formula, eh? The dolt Roberts, for example, allowed Obamacare to exist as a tax when proponents insisted it wasn't. The dangerous fool.

But it wasn't "unlimited financing" per sa, they simply agreed, as the "5" should have, that just because a citizen incorporate does not mean they give up their rights as citizens.

I'm sorry, but it helped, in VERY large measures, get Obama elected.

Corporatism, and crony-capitalism, are not an indictment on either political philosophy or on capitalism itself. It is a scurge, yes, and political "parties" on both sides are guilty. They DO NOT have our best interests in mind.

 

[Listening]

Thanks for you thoughtless comment.

The right could run on a platform of:

1. Protect it in it's current form for those who have put into it. They deserve (even though the SCOTUS says that isn't the case) it.
2. Modify the system so that it looks more like banking. You get a statement of how much you put in. You are entitled to that much out. Your "base" would be invested, as it is now, in simple safe, securities and it would be guaranteed. If you want to put more in because you can't get a 401K, then you can. This could go to a second tier where you would have more investment options.
3. If you are a deadbeat dad, then mom (via the courts) can tap into your S.S. and you will have less for retirement. Simple.
4. If you want out, you can opt out if you follow prescribed formulas for retirement planning and you understand that you won't be getting an S.S. when you retire. If that means catfood and a cardboard box.....well, enjoy it.

So why don't you go screw yourself for being such an asswipe.

The vast majority would be better off with a Chilean type system of privatized retirement accounts.

The account belongs to the individual, who decides how to invest it, and can leave it to his or her heirs. The Government cannot borrow against it with fake lockbox IOU taxes on future generations.

No. The Chilean system failed so badly that they have had to reform it. Furthermore, the fees and costs associated with the privatization have harmed it tremendously.

Are you ever going to provide support for your assertions ?

I have heard arguments for both sides.

 

[Disir]

Thanks for you thoughtless comment.

The right could run on a platform of:

1. Protect it in it's current form for those who have put into it. They deserve (even though the SCOTUS says that isn't the case) it.
2. Modify the system so that it looks more like banking. You get a statement of how much you put in. You are entitled to that much out. Your "base" would be invested, as it is now, in simple safe, securities and it would be guaranteed. If you want to put more in because you can't get a 401K, then you can. This could go to a second tier where you would have more investment options.
3. If you are a deadbeat dad, then mom (via the courts) can tap into your S.S. and you will have less for retirement. Simple.
4. If you want out, you can opt out if you follow prescribed formulas for retirement planning and you understand that you won't be getting an S.S. when you retire. If that means catfood and a cardboard box.....well, enjoy it.

So why don't you go screw yourself for being such an asswipe.

The vast majority would be better off with a Chilean type system of privatized retirement accounts.

The account belongs to the individual, who decides how to invest it, and can leave it to his or her heirs. The Government cannot borrow against it with fake lockbox IOU taxes on future generations.

No. The Chilean system failed so badly that they have had to reform it. Furthermore, the fees and costs associated with the privatization have harmed it tremendously.

Are you ever going to provide support for your assertions ?

I have heard arguments for both sides.

Am I ever? Try again.
I did that on another thread. If you were unwilling to deal with the issue there then I doubt it will be so much here. I'm not going to spend all day doing this, so have a few right off the top.

Pay attention to management fees, transition costs, etc. Note that it is mandatory. Further, take into consideration that the BS on lowering wages and then the expectations on participation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27pension.html?_r=0

http://72.32.39.237:8080/Plone/commentary/pdfs/nc962/chilefactsheet.pdf

http://www.eoionline.org/wp/wp-cont...ity/SSPrivatizationChileCaseCaution-Sep00.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/i...b0a&ex=1294549200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

 

[Listening]

Thanks for you thoughtless comment.

The right could run on a platform of:

1. Protect it in it's current form for those who have put into it. They deserve (even though the SCOTUS says that isn't the case) it.
2. Modify the system so that it looks more like banking. You get a statement of how much you put in. You are entitled to that much out. Your "base" would be invested, as it is now, in simple safe, securities and it would be guaranteed. If you want to put more in because you can't get a 401K, then you can. This could go to a second tier where you would have more investment options.
3. If you are a deadbeat dad, then mom (via the courts) can tap into your S.S. and you will have less for retirement. Simple.
4. If you want out, you can opt out if you follow prescribed formulas for retirement planning and you understand that you won't be getting an S.S. when you retire. If that means catfood and a cardboard box.....well, enjoy it.

So why don't you go screw yourself for being such an asswipe.

The vast majority would be better off with a Chilean type system of privatized retirement accounts.

The account belongs to the individual, who decides how to invest it, and can leave it to his or her heirs. The Government cannot borrow against it with fake lockbox IOU taxes on future generations.

No. The Chilean system failed so badly that they have had to reform it. Furthermore, the fees and costs associated with the privatization have harmed it tremendously.

Are you ever going to provide support for your assertions ?

I have heard arguments for both sides.

Am I ever? Try again.
I did that on another thread. If you were unwilling to deal with the issue there then I doubt it will be so much here. I'm not going to spend all day doing this, so have a few right off the top.

Pay attention to management fees, transition costs, etc. Note that it is mandatory. Further, take into consideration that the BS on lowering wages and then the expectations on participation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27pension.html?_r=0

http://72.32.39.237:8080/Plone/commentary/pdfs/nc962/chilefactsheet.pdf

http://www.eoionline.org/wp/wp-cont...ity/SSPrivatizationChileCaseCaution-Sep00.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/i...b0a&ex=1294549200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

All you did was parrot an article.

It's not like you can explain anything with this.

How can it be mandatory when they express concerns about a 50% non-participation rate. Additionally, the government took to much credit for this system by cutting spending in other places. That is the fault of the system ? Don't think so.

High transition costs. That is just a governments way of using the system to address other woes.

In short, there is nothing in there that calls it a failure (as you claim).

 

[boedicca]

No. The Chilean system failed so badly that they have had to reform it. Furthermore, the fees and costs associated with the privatization have harmed it tremendously.

No it didn't. It got hijacked by redistributionists who wanted a taxpayer funded welfare system for The Poor.

 

[Disir]

No. The Chilean system failed so badly that they have had to reform it. Furthermore, the fees and costs associated with the privatization have harmed it tremendously.

No it didn't. It got hijacked by redistributionists who wanted a taxpayer funded welfare system for The Poor.

No. It failed.

 

[boedicca]

No. The Chilean system failed so badly that they have had to reform it. Furthermore, the fees and costs associated with the privatization have harmed it tremendously.

No it didn't. It got hijacked by redistributionists who wanted a taxpayer funded welfare system for The Poor.

No. It failed.

Not it didn't. It worked for many people. But very poor people who only worked sporadically didn't contribute enough to their accounts. The World Bank took notice...and pressured Chile to implement a standard taxpayer funded welfare program. Quel surprise.

 

[Listening]

No. The Chilean system failed so badly that they have had to reform it. Furthermore, the fees and costs associated with the privatization have harmed it tremendously.

No it didn't. It got hijacked by redistributionists who wanted a taxpayer funded welfare system for The Poor.

No. It failed.

That is simply a lazy statement on your part...that or dishonest.

Your own links show that the government essentially mismanaged the system. You know....government...the same type of org in charge of S.S.

I am not in favor of privatization. As I stated before, the contributions should be treated like it is your money (not a Paygo) even though it will take a long time to change the system over. That way, your statement (which S.S. is apparently no longer sending out) will tell you how much you put in and how much interest it has earned and how much you can withdraw before you are effectively on welfare.

 

[Listening]

A bump for Franco's stupid assertion.

Social Security sucks.

I would not get rid of it because there are so many who paid into it and need it.

If I was 16 years old and coming into the workforce, I'd like a different administration of the system with a different set of standards.

In the end, there are a lot of elderly who will burn through what they put and the supposed interested that would have come with it.....who would be shocked to know they will die having essentially been on welfare.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let's see,

The OP points out that a good many people approaching retirement haven't saved any money for their retirement years.

Skull Pilot argues that if people were not required to pay into Social Security they would be able to invest the money taken from them and built a nice nest egg.

Is it fair to assume those who didn't save, wouldn't invest?

So who benefits if Social Security is no more?

1. Employers
2. Insurance Companies
3. Banks
4. The Bernie Madoff's and other cheats
5.. Pawn Brokers
6. Stock Brokers
7. Plutocrats & the 1%
8. The investor class

who will be screwed? The same people who live on Social Security today, and won't have even that small amount to survive on. Thus, the taxpayer will provide food, clothing and shelter.

Look back at census records prior to the advent of SS. If you do you will see a good many people living in large abodes, those abodes were the poor houses.

But, keep in mind, the power elite in America will be in control of the laws, and the Plutocrats are the 1% who will write tax laws to their advantage.

You don't read very well do you?

I said make the exact same contributions mandatory but let people own their accounts not the government. If like you people are afraid of the market then they and you can buy treasury bonds and let the rest of the people build real wealth

 

[Skull Pilot]

Another sheep who refuses to do the math.

I've given countless examples of how even a person of modest income can create real wealth with the money confiscated for SS but you sheep don't bother to listen

No. You didn't. You just bitched and because I'm not buying your get rich quick scams then I'm a sheep. OK.

Do a search and you'll see many real world examples based on historical returns I have given in the past.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, it doesn't.

Another sheep who refuses to do the math.

I've given countless examples of how even a person of modest income can create real wealth with the money confiscated for SS but you sheep don't bother to listen

ooo ooo Then you must be a real 1%-er, right?

So, pray tell, just what are these "countless" ways of "creating real wealth with the money confiscated for SS"?

I have given historical results over many different scenarios in the past. I have also tried to show you sheep that over the course of just a few generations a family with the desire and discipline can build wealth that will turn into a multi generational fortune all for just 100 a month each.

But you don't care about those examples do you? So you figure out your income from the time you started working and then figure out what 15% of that income invested in an S&P indexed portfolio over all your working lifetime would be worth today. Then figure out how much income that would provide you and compare it to the average 1200 a month SS would pay you