Do you Social Security fearmongers realize you can't get something for nothing?

[Skull Pilot]

One of the best scenarios is to have more people buying goods and services than are producing those goods and services. Then you will have surplus profits that can be used to expand other markets for other goods and services.

If there are 2 workers to 1 retiree then those 2 workers have to make enough for 3. Doesn't matter if the 1 retiree is selling his stock shares to the 2 workers and then buying their products and services with the money - or whether the workers are taxed by government to fund the retiree - they still have to make enough for 3 instead of 2.


Its simple math. Can you understand it? Just try.

So one person is only capable of making enough of a product for one other person?

I can make enough apples pies in one day for 100 people to buy and eat. Why would I only make 1 pie?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It doesn't matter if the funds had been invested in T-Bills, corporate stocks and bonds, Real Estate or even derivatives. The issue is not the investment but rather the usage of the receipts for other purposes that has caused Social Security to be a burden on the economy.

Immie

What purposes should the excess receipts have been used for?

Saving for a rainy day... er period of diminishing workforce like we are going through now. At the very least a reserve should have been established and maintained, but greedy Congress critters used it as pork.

Immie

Saving for a rainy day in what form? You've already eliminated most every investment vehicle known to man in your rant above - what should they be saved in, baseball cards?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Mess with Social Security and your Political Aspirations are Over. Everyone knows this but Redneck Perry!

Because you sheep have bought the lie hook line and sinker that government taking your money to give it back to you later is a good thing.

Its fundamentally no different than a company pension plan.

Oh no, it's vastly different.

 

[Immanuel]

What purposes should the excess receipts have been used for?

Saving for a rainy day... er period of diminishing workforce like we are going through now. At the very least a reserve should have been established and maintained, but greedy Congress critters used it as pork.

Immie

Saving for a rainy day in what form? You've already eliminated most every investment vehicle known to man in your rant above - what should they be saved in, baseball cards?

Maybe you need a reading course? Yes, clearly you do.

I didn't eliminate any investment vehicle. If Congress had invested it rather than spent it, we would not be in this predicament.

Immie

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

One of the best scenarios is to have more people buying goods and services than are producing those goods and services. Then you will have surplus profits that can be used to expand other markets for other goods and services.

If there are 2 workers to 1 retiree then those 2 workers have to make enough for 3. Doesn't matter if the 1 retiree is selling his stock shares to the 2 workers and then buying their products and services with the money - or whether the workers are taxed by government to fund the retiree - they still have to make enough for 3 instead of 2.


Its simple math. Can you understand it? Just try.

So one person is only capable of making enough of a product for one other person?

I can make enough apples pies in one day for 100 people to buy and eat. Why would I only make 1 pie?

You are aware that people need more than pies to live on, right?


You can't understand the most basic of concepts.

If 100,000,000 people have to make enough for 150,000,000 people - then they have to work longer and/or for less than if 100,000,000 people have to make enough only for 125,000,000 people. Its simple math.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Social Security fearmongers constantly bemoan the fact that the investment of excess FICA revenue in obligations of the United States Treasury means the burden of making up the projected shortfalls in FICA will fall on the taxpayer, and hence, the U.S. economy. That is of course - true.

I have to ask - what other domestic investment vehicle could have prevented the burden from falling on the U.S. economy?

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S.corporate debt, then it would be U.S. corporations that have to make up the shortfall - thus the burden still falls on the U.S. economy.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S. stocks, the shortfall would be made up for with dividends from U.S.companies and with sale of stock positions to mostly U.S. citizens - thus the burden again, falls on the U.S. economy to make up the shortfall.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in insurance contracts with U.S. insurers -still the burden falls on the U.S. economy.


The alternative would be to invest in assets with large foreign exposure - like commodities, foreign stock and debt, etc. - but then when the Trust Fund runs in the black, its taking U.S. tax revenues and sending them OUT of the country - investing them in foreign nations instead of the U.S. economy - thus STILL the burden falls on the U.S. economy!

So how would you have done it in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy? BE SPECIFIC

Yet ANOTHER Whack-A-Mole thread on Soc Sec. Didn't even care about the 80 pages or so that you've already been told there is no financial value in the Trust Fund..

But at least you're onto what SHOULD have happened. Which I've already given you an example whereby past taxpayers who had their excess FICA stolen would have been able to see value for the money they put in. Go back and see why exchanging those excess FICA charges in EXISTING OPEN MARKET REAL T-Bonds would have yielded different results.

Just the TITLE of this Whacko-Moley thread is dishonest. I'm talking about the "something for nothing" assertion.. The theft of $40B to $100B each year for 30 yrs from working poor taxpayers is NOT NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You were mugged for that money.

And you were lied to about the ability of the Trust Fund to actually FINANCE SS deficits with the worthless notes in their vaults..

I'm glad you're interested in what SHOULD have happened. And there were plenty of other choices. They could have NOT SPENT the excess FICA and set up an account at the FED for instance. With REAL ON-BOOK interest being paid to that account. Or as I said in all the other threads - they could have taken EXISTING ISSUED T-BONDS off the open market. Either way -- Real value would have been stored in the TF and NO additional Taxpayer Debt would have been required to finance shortfalls..

Simple.. No blubbering about "foreign" bonds or market risks.. I'm sure there were other ways to handle it as well such as the REPUB proposal to USE the SS Surplus to mitigate future liabilities with a voluntary opt-out of future benefits from some who would continue to pay in something but take a percentage out for private accounts. ZILLIONS of creative options that the Clown College would never do when they could just STEALL the surplus and kick the can down the road..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Because you sheep have bought the lie hook line and sinker that government taking your money to give it back to you later is a good thing.

Its fundamentally no different than a company pension plan.

Oh no, it's vastly different.

Yet you can't explain it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Saving for a rainy day... er period of diminishing workforce like we are going through now. At the very least a reserve should have been established and maintained, but greedy Congress critters used it as pork.

Immie

Saving for a rainy day in what form? You've already eliminated most every investment vehicle known to man in your rant above - what should they be saved in, baseball cards?

Maybe you need a reading course? Yes, clearly you do.

I didn't eliminate any investment vehicle. If Congress had invested it rather than spent it, we would not be in this predicament.

Immie

The Social Security Fund bought treasury obligations with it.

Please explain what SPECIFIC choices would have been better.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If there are 2 workers to 1 retiree then those 2 workers have to make enough for 3. Doesn't matter if the 1 retiree is selling his stock shares to the 2 workers and then buying their products and services with the money - or whether the workers are taxed by government to fund the retiree - they still have to make enough for 3 instead of 2.


Its simple math. Can you understand it? Just try.

So one person is only capable of making enough of a product for one other person?

I can make enough apples pies in one day for 100 people to buy and eat. Why would I only make 1 pie?

You are aware that people need more than pies to live on, right?


You can't understand the most basic of concepts.

If 100,000,000 people have to make enough for 150,000,000 people - then they have to work longer and/or for less than if 100,000,000 people have to make enough only for 125,000,000 people. Its simple math.

Who says they have to work for less. The higher the demand for a product, the more profitable it is to produce that product.

If demand exceeds production then more is to be made not less. In fact you have it completely backwards if one million people are trying to produce for 3 million then demand is high and profits are high.

If 1 million people only have demand enough to produce for 1.5 million then their profits will be lower and in fact people will have less work and therefore make less money.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yet ANOTHER Whack-A-Mole thread on Soc Sec. Didn't even care about the 80 pages or so that you've already been told there is no financial value in the Trust Fund..

So because you tell something to someone over and over again - it becomes true. Got it.

Go back and see why exchanging those excess FICA charges in EXISTING OPEN MARKET REAL T-Bonds would have yielded different results.

No it wouldn't have. There would be no difference at all.

And you were lied to about the ability of the Trust Fund to actually FINANCE SS deficits with the worthless notes in their vaults..

Really? Did they stop paying benefits last year when expenses exceeded revenues?

They could have NOT SPENT the excess FICA and set up an account at the FED for instance.

LOL! How would that have changed anything? Federal Reserve deposits and notes are still ultimately obligations of the U.S. Government.

Or as I said in all the other threads - they could have taken EXISTING ISSUED T-BONDS off the open market.

Wouldn't have changed a thing - the Trust Fund would still be an obligation of the Treasury.

 

[flacaltenn]

We're done OOpydOO.. You are terminally stupid.. And stubborn to boot.

If you don't understand "using the surplus to defray future liabilities" then there's no point in debating with you. If you don't understand the diff between buying EXISTING T-BOND on the market and generating NEW DEBT on the backs of future taxpayers -- you're just blubbering..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

[

If demand exceeds production then more is to be made not less. In fact you have it completely backwards if one million people are trying to produce for 3 million then demand is high and profits are high.

And prices go up - meaning workers have to work longer hours to take home the same share of the economy.

If 1 million people only have demand enough to produce for 1.5 million then their profits will be lower and in fact people will have less work and therefore make less money.

And prices go down.


You can't seem to comprehend the simple fact that the workers still have to make enough for them and enough for those who don't work (in this case, retirees, but also, obviously, children and the disabled). If there are fewer workers then the burden of producing the goods and services is more per worker. How can you not understand that?


By your stupid logic, the economy would be booming the best if 299,999,999 people didn't work and 1 person worked.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If you don't understand the diff between buying EXISTING T-BOND on the market and generating NEW DEBT on the backs of future taxpayers -- you're just blubbering..

There's no difference moron, its the same market, treasuries of like coupon rates and maturity dates are fungible. If I buy a Treasury l from the market instead of directly from the Treasury it doesn't change the overall debt burden. The Treasury has to issue X amount of new debt regardless of how many investors buy directly from them - if they don't sell it to me, they'll lower the price and sell it to someone else.

 

[healthmyths]

Why are you against the individual accumulating $400,000 or more???
Why are you and the below AGAINST the average worker HAVING THE CHOICE???
There are MORE democrat/liberal/progressives that are violently against the average USA worker accumulating a retirement nest egg of $400,000 or more!

An average worker grossing $30,000 a year at age 23 after college entering the workforce with the salary increasing by 20% every 10 years for 42 years would have along with employer had $331,715 deducted.

If the worker HAD the freedom to direct the accumulation into a simple savings account that paid over 42 years 2% interest would accumulate $628,077!
Why is there ANYONE against the worker accumulating this?

And if the worker using tried and true financial planning where at young age more growth oriented assets moving to balance at middle age and almost all secured assets nearing retirement the average accumulation at 6% for 42 years would be: $1,985,897!

So why did ALL democrats/liberals/progressives all scare seniors thinking their social security was when Bush proposed privatization going to be at the hands of Wall street!
Gambling with their social security!
LIED through their teeth and seniors NEVER heard Bush's plan and now Ryan's plan
would HAVE NO CHANGES for over 55 years old!
No they showed Ryan pushing grandma over a cliff!

Isn't it just amazing the power of compound interest that could make the average worker at $30,000 a year accumulate almost $2 million!
Never again depending on anyone but at 5% interest earnings have $100K/year for ever!
Never having to depend on Medicare! Or the Government!
WHY folks are liberals/progressives against the ordinary person accumulating millions?
Ignorance is the ONLY reason I can think is why they are against it!

How does that relieve the U.S. economy of the burden? Did you understand my question at all?

And if the worker using tried and true financial planning where at young age more growth oriented assets moving to balance at middle age and almost all secured assets nearing retirement the average accumulation at 6% for 42 years would be: $1,985,897!

You do realize that if everyone had been investing FICA taxes in the stock market over the last 42 years - the price of stock would have been different over that period? Namely - higher. Except now, with more retirees, it would be lower. Like it says in the title - you can't get something for nothing.


Not to mention the burden of making those stock investments valuable in retirement still falls on the U.S. economy. Please tell me you understand basic economics.

============================
A) a worker with a minimum of $400,000 would NOT be receiving any payments from the Govt! It would be NO govt. money involved as it is now.
Do you understand that RIGHT now payroll taxes are lumped in as general revenue?
SS Trustees say 2036 there will be more money paid out then comes in!
So the economy is tremendously helped by capital creation via the worker allowed to accumulate a minimum of $400K!
As far as rate of return I used a purposely LOW ROI!
If used the AVERAGE ROI over 40 years of 8.4% the worker accumulates:$3.73 million!

 

[alan1]

If there are 2 workers to 1 retiree then those 2 workers have to make enough for 3. Doesn't matter if the 1 retiree is selling his stock shares to the 2 workers and then buying their products and services with the money - or whether the workers are taxed by government to fund the retiree - they still have to make enough for 3 instead of 2.


Its simple math. Can you understand it? Just try.

So one person is only capable of making enough of a product for one other person?

I can make enough apples pies in one day for 100 people to buy and eat. Why would I only make 1 pie?

You are aware that people need more than pies to live on, right?


You can't understand the most basic of concepts.

If 100,000,000 people have to make enough for 150,000,000 people - then they have to work longer and/or for less than if 100,000,000 people have to make enough only for 125,000,000 people. Its simple math.

Is it your proposal that nobody should ever retire?
What about children? Should they be forced to work since they are obviously using resources?

 

[alan1]

The Social Security fearmongers constantly bemoan the fact that the investment of excess FICA revenue in obligations of the United States Treasury means the burden of making up the projected shortfalls in FICA will fall on the taxpayer, and hence, the U.S. economy. That is of course - true.

I have to ask - what other domestic investment vehicle could have prevented the burden from falling on the U.S. economy?

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S.corporate debt, then it would be U.S. corporations that have to make up the shortfall - thus the burden still falls on the U.S. economy.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S. stocks, the shortfall would be made up for with dividends from U.S.companies and with sale of stock positions to mostly U.S. citizens - thus the burden again, falls on the U.S. economy to make up the shortfall.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in insurance contracts with U.S. insurers -still the burden falls on the U.S. economy.


The alternative would be to invest in assets with large foreign exposure - like commodities, foreign stock and debt, etc. - but then when the Trust Fund runs in the black, its taking U.S. tax revenues and sending them OUT of the country - investing them in foreign nations instead of the U.S. economy - thus STILL the burden falls on the U.S. economy!

So how would you have done it in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy? BE SPECIFIC

Why would you support an obviously racist program?
Below is an analysis and treatise I did some time back. I think it bears repeating here.

--------------------------------
Black Men Don’t Get Social Security

Well, the average black male gets no social security. It doesn’t matter how much they contribute.
All one has to do is look at the numbers to discover this.

For people born prior to 1955, the age to collect full social security benefits is age 66.
The average life span for a black male born prior to 1955 is less than 60 years.

For people born after 1959, the age to collect full social security is 67.
The average predicted life span of a black male doesn’t exceed 67 years unless he was born after 1996.
Somehow, I am guessing that the age to collect full social security benefits will be raised before some person born in 1996 actually reaches the current 67 year old age requirement.

The average life expectancy for a black male born in 1970 is 60 years. We can assume that he begins earning income and paying FICA tax at 20 years of age. That means he puts 6.2% of his gross income into the system for 40 years. His employer matches that at 6.2% also. Based upon statistics, the average black male collects nothing from that 40 year contribution.

That’s what I call a zero sum benefit for black men. Had he taken that same 12.4% and stuffed it under his mattress, his wife or children would have it.

Here is a link to the average life expectancy for blacks and whites by gender, just in case you want to see where you fit in. Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930–2007 — Infoplease.com

 

[Immanuel]

Saving for a rainy day in what form? You've already eliminated most every investment vehicle known to man in your rant above - what should they be saved in, baseball cards?

Maybe you need a reading course? Yes, clearly you do.

I didn't eliminate any investment vehicle. If Congress had invested it rather than spent it, we would not be in this predicament.

Immie

The Social Security Fund bought treasury obligations with it.

Please explain what SPECIFIC choices would have been better.

Now you are changing the question.

The answer to this depends on the objective. Is the objective to maximize retiree benefits? Or maximize the amount that the government confiscates from citizens never to be paid back again? Or some other criteria?

Immie

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A) a worker with a minimum of $400,000 would NOT be receiving any payments from the Govt! It would be NO govt. money involved as it is now.

Thanks for answering the question I didn't ask.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Is it your proposal that nobody should ever retire?

No. However, it is my proposal you answer the question posed at the end of the OP.

What about children?

What about them?

Should they be forced to work since they are obviously using resources?

No. Are you retarded or something?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Social Security fearmongers constantly bemoan the fact that the investment of excess FICA revenue in obligations of the United States Treasury means the burden of making up the projected shortfalls in FICA will fall on the taxpayer, and hence, the U.S. economy. That is of course - true.

I have to ask - what other domestic investment vehicle could have prevented the burden from falling on the U.S. economy?

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S.corporate debt, then it would be U.S. corporations that have to make up the shortfall - thus the burden still falls on the U.S. economy.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in U.S. stocks, the shortfall would be made up for with dividends from U.S.companies and with sale of stock positions to mostly U.S. citizens - thus the burden again, falls on the U.S. economy to make up the shortfall.

If the Trust Funds had been invested in insurance contracts with U.S. insurers -still the burden falls on the U.S. economy.


The alternative would be to invest in assets with large foreign exposure - like commodities, foreign stock and debt, etc. - but then when the Trust Fund runs in the black, its taking U.S. tax revenues and sending them OUT of the country - investing them in foreign nations instead of the U.S. economy - thus STILL the burden falls on the U.S. economy!

So how would you have done it in a manner which does not place the burden on the U.S. economy? BE SPECIFIC

Why would you support an obviously racist program?
Below is an analysis and treatise I did some time back. I think it bears repeating here.

--------------------------------
Black Men Don’t Get Social Security

Well, the average black male gets no social security. It doesn’t matter how much they contribute.
All one has to do is look at the numbers to discover this.

For people born prior to 1955, the age to collect full social security benefits is age 66.
The average life span for a black male born prior to 1955 is less than 60 years.

For people born after 1959, the age to collect full social security is 67.
The average predicted life span of a black male doesn’t exceed 67 years unless he was born after 1996.
Somehow, I am guessing that the age to collect full social security benefits will be raised before some person born in 1996 actually reaches the current 67 year old age requirement.

The average life expectancy for a black male born in 1970 is 60 years. We can assume that he begins earning income and paying FICA tax at 20 years of age. That means he puts 6.2% of his gross income into the system for 40 years. His employer matches that at 6.2% also. Based upon statistics, the average black male collects nothing from that 40 year contribution.

That’s what I call a zero sum benefit for black men. Had he taken that same 12.4% and stuffed it under his mattress, his wife or children would have it.

Here is a link to the average life expectancy for blacks and whites by gender, just in case you want to see where you fit in. Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex, 1930–2007 — Infoplease.com

Thanks for being one of many posters to answer one of many questions I did NOT ask!