Beating Social Security

[Lakhota]

Since Social Security is self-funded by those who paid into it during their working years - how is it somehow a "government liability"? Social Security isn't like food stamps and/or welfare - because the recipients paid for it. As in the past, Social Security simply needs continued tuning and tweaking.

"...how is it somehow a "government liability"?"

Gads, are you dumb.

" The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033,after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Even if true - so what? The government doesn't pay for Social Security.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The first thing wrong with your numbers is that the FICA deductions include both Social Security AND Medicare taxes. This puts your numbers somewhere past Mars.

. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033,after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

That doesn't answer the imbalance that I posted. You can't arrive at your numbers with half the money.

"In addition, our research shows that when all Social Security and Medicare liabilities are included, our national debt is over $80 trillion. The federal government’s most recent financials from 2014 excluded $27.9 trillion of Social Security benefits from the national debt because government officials believe no benefits are owed beyond the checks that are currently written. This unreported debt is crippling the Social Security program and leaving those who are paying taxes today with a small chance of receiving any benefits in the future.

Unfortunately, this unreported $27.9 trillion debt is not the only issue with Social Security. There is a large decrease in the number of workers who are paying taxes to support each person on Social Security."
Social Security adding trillions to our national debt

Good god....

Almost four hours in and the child still has not come up with a viable replacement that "beats" Social Security

You should try to use language with the precision that I do.
"... still has not come up with a viable replacement that "beats" Social Security."

The correct statement would be "and the child still has not revealed the viable replacement that "beats" Social Security."


Brings to mind the jibe "know how to keep an idiot in suspense?"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since Social Security is self-funded by those who paid into it during their working years - how is it somehow a "government liability"? Social Security isn't like food stamps and/or welfare - because the recipients paid for it. As in the past, Social Security simply needs continued tuning and tweaking.

"...how is it somehow a "government liability"?"

Gads, are you dumb.

" The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033,after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Even if true - so what? The government doesn't pay for Social Security.

Let me guess,.,,,,,you're a government school grad?

 

[Lakhota]

Since Social Security is self-funded by those who paid into it during their working years - how is it somehow a "government liability"? Social Security isn't like food stamps and/or welfare - because the recipients paid for it. As in the past, Social Security simply needs continued tuning and tweaking.

"...how is it somehow a "government liability"?"

Gads, are you dumb.

" The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033,after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Even if true - so what? The government doesn't pay for Social Security.

Let me guess,.,,,,,you're a government school grad?

Well, does the government pay for Social Security or not? Yes or No?

 

[nuhuh]

6. The email goes on:

" If you calculate the future value of your monthly investment in social security ($375/month, including both you and your employers contributions) at a meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly, after 40 years of working you'd have more than $1.3+ million dollars saved!"


Is that possible???
Is it accurate?


a. I found this:

"...look at the $375 monthly payment invested at a "meager 1% interest rate compounded monthly". First, compounding an investment at 1% compounded monthly becomes 12.7% annual growth rate (1.01 raised to the 12th power). I would not consider this "meager". Also, if you used this 1% compounded monthly, your $375 monthly payment becomes $4.4 million over this 40 year work career which is very different than the $1.3 million stated in the email."
Understanding Data in the News: Social Security Myths Set Straight



b. Do banks compound monthly?
Yup.
" Interest on savings accounts is usually compounded daily and paid monthly. " How do savings accounts work?



c. And this:
· One pays a rate of 10%, compounded annually.

· One pays a rate of 9.6%, compounded monthly.

· One pays a rate of 9.5%, compounded continuously.
All of these accounts pay interest at the same rate (up to one decimal place, anyway). https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-banks-that-actually-offer-continuous-compound-interest




Let's go with the lower accrued total of $1.3 million, rather that the generous $4.4 million.
Does the Roosevelt plan pay off commensurate with those figures?


Judging by who posted this thread....wadda you think?
I'll prove it.

Still waiting for a viable proposal to replace Social Security....Remember, you have to "Beat" what we have

You still have over 200 million Americans you have to pay benefits to. You don't get to tear it up and start over. So your plan will have to provide a means to transition to a new program

"Remember, you have to "Beat" what we have."
Psst....I'm not the one having troubling remembering stuff.
Have you tried B12 shots?

And my posts will do exactly what you've asked.

Still looking for a viable plan

Guess over the last two hours you still can't find what you want to cut and paste. Hundreds of millions of lives hang in the balance

Calm down, old timer.

I plan the entire thread before the first post.
You didn't know that?

Did you want to explain the vapid 'cut and paste' comment?
You object to facts posted by that method?

Or are you grasping at straws because you have no adequate response to said facts.
You can be honest....just between us.

Why are denying that Reagan fixed social security for 50 years?

Gee....another lie from the NYLiar!

Shocker.

The first thing wrong with your numbers is that the FICA deductions include both Social Security AND Medicare taxes. This puts your numbers somewhere past Mars.

. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033,after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

That doesn't answer the imbalance that I posted. You can't arrive at your numbers with half the money.

"In addition, our research shows that when all Social Security and Medicare liabilities are included, our national debt is over $80 trillion. The federal government’s most recent financials from 2014 excluded $27.9 trillion of Social Security benefits from the national debt because government officials believe no benefits are owed beyond the checks that are currently written. This unreported debt is crippling the Social Security program and leaving those who are paying taxes today with a small chance of receiving any benefits in the future.

Unfortunately, this unreported $27.9 trillion debt is not the only issue with Social Security. There is a large decrease in the number of workers who are paying taxes to support each person on Social Security."
Social Security adding trillions to our national debt

You're cutting and pasting now and avoiding the question. Are you even aware that the median income in the U.S. didn't exceed $30,000 a year until 1993? We would have twenty more years to go before we could even prove your theory.

"You're cutting and pasting now blah blah blah"

What's your objection to cutting and pasting as a method of providing facts?

Is it because it sinks you?


It's been 21 years since 1993...
...so what is the overall average?

Well regardless your method you are still wrong. First, the contribution level is 12.4%, 6.2 from the individual and 6.2 from the employer in addition, their is a yearly cap on contributions.

So far, there wasn't a 30,000 a year average income until 1993.
SS contributions include both SS and Medicare
Contributions have varied over the life of SS
The biggest part of your formula that reeks is interest. Certificates of deposit and interest bearing savings accounts pay well below 1% and 2% and I don't know anyone who pays compound interest like that.

I think your email is from twenty years ago when those numbers might have had some authenticity. These days they are almost laughable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another ol' fogey who can't read, or can't remember what he's read.

From the OP:
"Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it."


Gads....you Liberals loose all ability to think when criticism of your god is advanced.


Bulletin: Roosevelt made LOTS of mistakes.

Social Security has evolved. It has lasted for 75 years of republican predictions of impending doom

It needs to be adjusted with a retirement age of 70 and higher payment limits, but other than that, it is working well

Is this your paean to President Ronald Reagan who saved Roosevelt's bacon (Social Security) in 1983???


YOU????

So you're not too old to learn, huh?



"In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see?

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments.

I imagine it takes a while to find something to cut and paste

I will wait with baited breath for your profound observations on saving Social Security

That's "bated breath."




And here's where those on Social Security should compare what they get to the email....


7. "Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year [of the $1.3 million], you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.

That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – it’s a fact).

And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts."





And remember....item #6 above suggests that you would actually have three times the amount saved after 40 years!

Wow!




OK...even if we stick to the lower figure.....what does this say about free market, i.e., conservative, solutions to the failed policies (read 'welfare policy') of Liberals/Progressives/Democrats?



Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?

Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments.

 

[rightwinger]

Social Security has evolved. It has lasted for 75 years of republican predictions of impending doom

It needs to be adjusted with a retirement age of 70 and higher payment limits, but other than that, it is working well

Is this your paean to President Ronald Reagan who saved Roosevelt's bacon (Social Security) in 1983???


YOU????

So you're not too old to learn, huh?



"In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see?

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments.

I imagine it takes a while to find something to cut and paste

I will wait with baited breath for your profound observations on saving Social Security

That's "bated breath."




And here's where those on Social Security should compare what they get to the email....


7. "Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year [of the $1.3 million], you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.

That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – it’s a fact).

And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts."





And remember....item #6 above suggests that you would actually have three times the amount saved after 40 years!

Wow!




OK...even if we stick to the lower figure.....what does this say about free market, i.e., conservative, solutions to the failed policies (read 'welfare policy') of Liberals/Progressives/Democrats?



Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?

Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments.

Sorry honey

Still not a plan. It assumes a blank slate with no existing Social Security liability. How do you transition from our existing Social Security to a cash only system?

I will wait another four hours for you to cut and paste another lame plan

I have a better option for you and I do not even have to cut and paste from some bogus email

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since Social Security is self-funded by those who paid into it during their working years - how is it somehow a "government liability"? Social Security isn't like food stamps and/or welfare - because the recipients paid for it. As in the past, Social Security simply needs continued tuning and tweaking.

"...how is it somehow a "government liability"?"

Gads, are you dumb.

" The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033,after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Even if true - so what? The government doesn't pay for Social Security.

Let me guess,.,,,,,you're a government school grad?

Well, does the government pay for Social Security or not? Yes or No?

OMG.
How does government pay for anything?????
....the government earns no money.
'
None.

It takes money from the private economy.....


OMG.

 

[regent]

[QUOTE
Certainly the Republicans had ample opportunity to introduce an old age plan of some type, even Bismarck had one going in Germany in the 1900's. With the prosperity of the Harding and Coolidge period the Republicans could have brought out the perfect plan. We had to wait for the biggest depression and a Democratic president to come up with the idea. Even then Republicans fought SS as evil. Now Republicans, after fighting SS for all these years, wonder why a perfect plan was not introduced.

"Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread."

Did our founders have a vision of Social Security or was that just thrown in for patriotic purposes?
Do you have any idea of the primary problems of starting a Social Security program during the Great Depression? One of problems was to create a program that the Republicans could not kill or privatize when they came into office.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is this your paean to President Ronald Reagan who saved Roosevelt's bacon (Social Security) in 1983???


YOU????

So you're not too old to learn, huh?



"In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see?

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments.

I imagine it takes a while to find something to cut and paste

I will wait with baited breath for your profound observations on saving Social Security

That's "bated breath."




And here's where those on Social Security should compare what they get to the email....


7. "Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year [of the $1.3 million], you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.

That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – it’s a fact).

And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts."





And remember....item #6 above suggests that you would actually have three times the amount saved after 40 years!

Wow!




OK...even if we stick to the lower figure.....what does this say about free market, i.e., conservative, solutions to the failed policies (read 'welfare policy') of Liberals/Progressives/Democrats?



Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?

Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments.

Sorry honey

Still not a plan. It assumes a blank slate with no existing Social Security liability. How do you transition from our existing Social Security to a cash only system?

I will wait another four hours for you to cut and paste another lame plan

I have a better option for you and I do not even have to cut and paste from some bogus email

Now get the abacus out, and see if "$3,277 per month" is more, or less than you get from Social Security.


I'll wait.

 

[Arianrhod]

That's "bated breath."

Well, you're correct about that much. Several people have asked you what you'd put in place of SS. You haven't answered. Why? Too busy fixing up the spare room for when you cut Grandma off from her benefits and she has nowhere to go except to live with you?

 

[Lakhota]

Q27: Do the Social Security Trust Funds earn interest?

A: Yes they do. By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be invested in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government bonds. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and "special obligation" securities issued only to federal trust funds. In practice, most of the securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are of the "special obligation" type. (See additional explanation from SSA's Office of the Actuary.)

The Trust Funds earn interest which is set at the average market yield on long-term Treasury securities. Interest earnings on the invested assets of the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds were $55.5 billion in calendar year 1999. This represented an effective annual interest rate of 6.9 percent.

The Trust Funds have earned interest in every year since the program began. More detailed information on the Trust Fund investments can be found in the Annual Report of the Social Security Trustees and on the Actuary's webpages concerning the Investment Transactions and Investment Holdings of the Trust Funds.

Social Security History

Some additional information. U.S. government bonds are certainly safer than the stock market.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Q27: Do the Social Security Trust Funds earn interest?

A: Yes they do. By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be invested in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government bonds. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and "special obligation" securities issued only to federal trust funds. In practice, most of the securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are of the "special obligation" type. (See additional explanation from SSA's Office of the Actuary.)

The Trust Funds earn interest which is set at the average market yield on long-term Treasury securities. Interest earnings on the invested assets of the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds were $55.5 billion in calendar year 1999. This represented an effective annual interest rate of 6.9 percent.

The Trust Funds have earned interest in every year since the program began. More detailed information on the Trust Fund investments can be found in the Annual Report of the Social Security Trustees and on the Actuary's webpages concerning the Investment Transactions and Investment Holdings of the Trust Funds.

Social Security History

Some additional information. U.S. government bonds are certainly safer than the stock market.

It's a Ponzi Scheme, you dope!!!

There is no money there!!!


"So how much has the government racked up in unfunded liabilities? No one knows for sure, but I’ve seen credible estimates starting at $127T and going up from there. Assuming the bottom end of the range, the burden on each and every working person is about $1M.

The term unfunded liabilities is a dry and antiseptic term that makes people’s eyes glaze over. It serves to conceal a crime so big, that it makes Bernie Madoff look like a fourth grader stealing his classmates’ lunch money.

The reality is not very complicated. Our government has been making promises that it cannot honor. When it defaults, retirees and workers will realize that they’ve been robbed of their savings and pensions. Most will never fully recover."
Unfunded Liabilities are Fraudulent Promises


On the bright side...for you...you're exactly what the Democrat Party yearns for.

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody ever claimed Social Security would not evolve to meet the needs of a changing society

What changes to Social Security would you like to see?

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments.

I imagine it takes a while to find something to cut and paste

I will wait with baited breath for your profound observations on saving Social Security

That's "bated breath."




And here's where those on Social Security should compare what they get to the email....


7. "Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year [of the $1.3 million], you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.

That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – it’s a fact).

And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts."





And remember....item #6 above suggests that you would actually have three times the amount saved after 40 years!

Wow!




OK...even if we stick to the lower figure.....what does this say about free market, i.e., conservative, solutions to the failed policies (read 'welfare policy') of Liberals/Progressives/Democrats?



Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?

Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments.

Sorry honey

Still not a plan. It assumes a blank slate with no existing Social Security liability. How do you transition from our existing Social Security to a cash only system?

I will wait another four hours for you to cut and paste another lame plan

I have a better option for you and I do not even have to cut and paste from some bogus email

Now get the abacus out, and see if "$3,277 per month" is more, or less than you get from Social Security.


I'll wait.

Still not much of a plan

So far, your "plan" zeroes out the contributions of 200 million Americans and makes them start a 401k plan from scratch. I think you would be lynched by a bunch of old ladies

Now, my plan would allow people to keep their existing Social Security and set up a seperate 401K plan to accumulate a retirement nest egg

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's "bated breath."

Well, you're correct about that much. Several people have asked you what you'd put in place of SS. You haven't answered. Why? Too busy fixing up the spare room for when you cut Grandma off from her benefits and she has nowhere to go except to live with you?

Can you find the quote where I've recommended cutting "Grandma off from her benefits"?

Shall I wait, or would you rather admit you're a moron immediately?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I recognize that at your advanced age, you don't even buy green bananas....

...but hold your horses, grandpa....

I'll lay it all out, as I usually do....slowly, accurately, and completely.

You may want to take notes on the thread.



Need the bottom line now?
OK....the megalomaniac, Roosevelt, jumped at the idea, an would brook no adjustments.

I imagine it takes a while to find something to cut and paste

I will wait with baited breath for your profound observations on saving Social Security

That's "bated breath."




And here's where those on Social Security should compare what they get to the email....


7. "Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year [of the $1.3 million], you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.

That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – it’s a fact).

And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts."





And remember....item #6 above suggests that you would actually have three times the amount saved after 40 years!

Wow!




OK...even if we stick to the lower figure.....what does this say about free market, i.e., conservative, solutions to the failed policies (read 'welfare policy') of Liberals/Progressives/Democrats?



Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?

Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments.

Sorry honey

Still not a plan. It assumes a blank slate with no existing Social Security liability. How do you transition from our existing Social Security to a cash only system?

I will wait another four hours for you to cut and paste another lame plan

I have a better option for you and I do not even have to cut and paste from some bogus email

Now get the abacus out, and see if "$3,277 per month" is more, or less than you get from Social Security.


I'll wait.

Still not much of a plan

So far, your "plan" zeroes out the contributions of 200 million Americans and makes them start a 401k plan from scratch. I think you would be lynched by a bunch of old ladies

Now, my plan would allow people to keep their existing Social Security and set up a seperate 401K plan to accumulate a retirement nest egg

Is "$3,277 per month" is more, or less than you get from Social Security.


As you decline to answer, one can only conclude that it is more.

So much for your vaunted Roosevelt plan.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Q27: Do the Social Security Trust Funds earn interest?

A: Yes they do. By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be invested in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government bonds. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and "special obligation" securities issued only to federal trust funds. In practice, most of the securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are of the "special obligation" type. (See additional explanation from SSA's Office of the Actuary.)

The Trust Funds earn interest which is set at the average market yield on long-term Treasury securities. Interest earnings on the invested assets of the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds were $55.5 billion in calendar year 1999. This represented an effective annual interest rate of 6.9 percent.

The Trust Funds have earned interest in every year since the program began. More detailed information on the Trust Fund investments can be found in the Annual Report of the Social Security Trustees and on the Actuary's webpages concerning the Investment Transactions and Investment Holdings of the Trust Funds.

Social Security History

Some additional information. U.S. government bonds are certainly safer than the stock market.

It's a Ponzi Scheme, you dope!!!

There is no money there!!!


"So how much has the government racked up in unfunded liabilities? No one knows for sure, but I’ve seen credible estimates starting at $127T and going up from there. Assuming the bottom end of the range, the burden on each and every working person is about $1M.

The term unfunded liabilities is a dry and antiseptic term that makes people’s eyes glaze over. It serves to conceal a crime so big, that it makes Bernie Madoff look like a fourth grader stealing his classmates’ lunch money.

The reality is not very complicated. Our government has been making promises that it cannot honor. When it defaults, retirees and workers will realize that they’ve been robbed of their savings and pensions. Most will never fully recover."
Unfunded Liabilities are Fraudulent Promises


On the bright side...for you...you're exactly what the Democrat Party yearns for.

Not that loony "Ponzi Scheme" shit again. You'd better warn China and Japan - because they also own a shitload of our national debt. Social Security is the largest holder of U.S. national debt - which means it is the largest financier of our government.

That was Forbes you're ignoring.
Government school makes you smarter than them, huh?



"Forbes is an American business magazine owned by Forbes, Inc. Published biweekly, it features original articles on finance, industry, investing, and marketing topics. Forbes also reports on related subjects such as technology, communications, science, and law."
Forbes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nuhuh]

I imagine it takes a while to find something to cut and paste

I will wait with baited breath for your profound observations on saving Social Security

That's "bated breath."




And here's where those on Social Security should compare what they get to the email....


7. "Upon retirement, if you took out only 3% per year [of the $1.3 million], you'd receive $39,318 per year, or $3,277 per month.

That's almost three times more than today's average Social Security benefit of $1,230 per month, according to the Social Security Administration. (Google it – it’s a fact).

And your retirement fund would last more than 33 years (until you're 98 if you retire at age 65)! I can only imagine how much better most average-income people could live in retirement if our government had just invested our money in low-risk interest-earning accounts."





And remember....item #6 above suggests that you would actually have three times the amount saved after 40 years!

Wow!




OK...even if we stick to the lower figure.....what does this say about free market, i.e., conservative, solutions to the failed policies (read 'welfare policy') of Liberals/Progressives/Democrats?



Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?

Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments.

Sorry honey

Still not a plan. It assumes a blank slate with no existing Social Security liability. How do you transition from our existing Social Security to a cash only system?

I will wait another four hours for you to cut and paste another lame plan

I have a better option for you and I do not even have to cut and paste from some bogus email

Now get the abacus out, and see if "$3,277 per month" is more, or less than you get from Social Security.


I'll wait.

Still not much of a plan

So far, your "plan" zeroes out the contributions of 200 million Americans and makes them start a 401k plan from scratch. I think you would be lynched by a bunch of old ladies

Now, my plan would allow people to keep their existing Social Security and set up a seperate 401K plan to accumulate a retirement nest egg

Is "$3,277 per month" is more, or less than you get from Social Security.


As you decline to answer, one can only conclude that it is more.

So much for your vaunted Roosevelt plan.

So much for your own plan. Please show the class anyone who pays compound interest anymore.

 

[Lakhota]

Q27: Do the Social Security Trust Funds earn interest?

A: Yes they do. By law, the assets of the Social Security program must be invested in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government bonds. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and "special obligation" securities issued only to federal trust funds. In practice, most of the securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are of the "special obligation" type. (See additional explanation from SSA's Office of the Actuary.)

The Trust Funds earn interest which is set at the average market yield on long-term Treasury securities. Interest earnings on the invested assets of the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds were $55.5 billion in calendar year 1999. This represented an effective annual interest rate of 6.9 percent.

The Trust Funds have earned interest in every year since the program began. More detailed information on the Trust Fund investments can be found in the Annual Report of the Social Security Trustees and on the Actuary's webpages concerning the Investment Transactions and Investment Holdings of the Trust Funds.

Social Security History

Some additional information. U.S. government bonds are certainly safer than the stock market.

It's a Ponzi Scheme, you dope!!!

There is no money there!!!


"So how much has the government racked up in unfunded liabilities? No one knows for sure, but I’ve seen credible estimates starting at $127T and going up from there. Assuming the bottom end of the range, the burden on each and every working person is about $1M.

The term unfunded liabilities is a dry and antiseptic term that makes people’s eyes glaze over. It serves to conceal a crime so big, that it makes Bernie Madoff look like a fourth grader stealing his classmates’ lunch money.

The reality is not very complicated. Our government has been making promises that it cannot honor. When it defaults, retirees and workers will realize that they’ve been robbed of their savings and pensions. Most will never fully recover."
Unfunded Liabilities are Fraudulent Promises


On the bright side...for you...you're exactly what the Democrat Party yearns for.

Not that loony "Ponzi Scheme" shit again. You'd better warn China and Japan - because they also own a shitload of our national debt. Social Security is the largest holder of U.S. national debt - which means it is the largest financier of our government.

Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme

 

[leftwinger]

all the government needs to do now is put in another comparable adjustment

sure. They could adjust for "this one" but they have $20T in debt to "adjust" also. deep sigh. I know, I know.