Herman Cain's Social Security Plan - Chilean Way

GHook93

Aristotle
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
20,150
Reaction score
3,508
Points
290
Location
Chicago
Chile is the only country in Latin America can is a 1st world nation (Brazil is close). Chile was the FIRST country to create a social security system, therefore, they were the first to see it go bankrupt. Back in 1981 they had a genius idea and it not only saved their system, but actually created 10x more money for retirees at retirement. IT'S THE BEST SYSTEM IN THE WORLD!!! So much so countries around the world have been lining up to copy it!!!

My man Herman Cain is one of those people that KNOWS America must do this also! Liberals are slandering him for his, but they have NO IDEA what it is!

Attached is a PDF on the Chilean Social Security System - the best in the world! See the Liberal tribunes assessment of it! Cain knocks another one out of the park, along with his 9-9-9 plan.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v59n3/v59n3p45.pdf

Countries Line Up To Copy Chile's Pension System - Chicago Tribune

Since 1980, Chile has run the world's most-successful private pension system. And now just about everyone wants to copy it.

Visitors from Russia, China, Thailand and Spain file through the pension fund chief's office in ever-growing throngs these days, picking up stacks of literature in English and Spanish. His staff publishes a pension system newsletter that now has 500 subscribers in the United States alone. Peru, Ecuador and a host of other nations are already converts.

"Chile's better known for its pension funds these days than its wines," he says, smiling.

Why Chile's model is so popular isn't hard to understand. In the late 1970s, this country of 14 million faced the same kind of problem now bedeviling the United States and other countries: a social security system rapidly approaching insolvency.

Chile's then-military government reacted with a novel approach recommended by its University of Chicago-trained economic advisers: It privatized the system.

Workers, instead of paying a social security tax to the government, began paying 10 percent of their salary into an individual retirement account, managed by one of a handful of government-approved private investment firms.

Older workers, who had not had the opportunity to build up adequate private accounts, continued to get checks from the government. But in time, those transition payments will be phased out.

The program has been an enormous success. Chile's private savings rate has ballooned to 30 percent, on par with Asian countries, as workers have socked away more than $27 billion. Most workers can now expect to retire after 35 years at 85 percent of their salary--and that's if they receive only fairly low returns of 4 percent annually in real terms. Actual real returns have topped 12 percent, Bustamante said.

Those kind of numbers have attracted the attention of the United States, which is facing the rapidly looming breakdown of its own Social Security system.

By around 2012, Social Security, now stuck with only 1.5 workers per retiree, down from 8 per retiree decades ago, will begin to pay out more money than it takes in, according to the Washington-based Cato Institute, a libertarian research group.

At that point, the country will face some "rather ugly choices," as Ted Carpenter, Cato's vice president, puts it. Those will be to either drastically cut benefits or dramatically raise Social Security taxes on workers.

Particularly hard-hit will be workers now in their mid-40s and younger, who without any change to the current system may spend a lifetime paying into it without getting much in the way of benefits back, Carpenter said.

If it allowed workers to begin paying into their own private retirement funds, the United States, like Chile, would have to find some way to continue paying out Social Security benefits to current recipients for a few decades without any money coming into the system.

That could be especially difficult for a country like the United States with a large budget deficit and a Social Security "fund" filled with IOUs rather than cash, said Andras Uthoff, a Santiago-based monetary expert with the United Nations.

But if the money can be found, the switch offers a host of long-term benefits beyond simply avoiding an eventual collapse of the current system, Uthoff said.

First, the changeover would make the whole process of retirement saving clearer in the United States, by allowing workers to keep and invest their own money rather than pay it into a system that promises them they will one day get it back.

Right now, the U.S. retirement system functions "in a black box," Uthoff said. "Money comes in, money goes out and it's not clear what goes on in the middle." The new model removes the government from the equation, ensuring it cannot borrow retirement funds to mask government debt.

Under the Chilean system, workers get statements every few months showing exactly how much money they have saved and can expect to receive at retirement, a "more transparent process," Uthoff said. They also choose how and where to invest their money--within a limited range of low-risk investments--rather than trusting the government to make the best decision on their behalf...
 
OP
GHook93

GHook93

Aristotle
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
20,150
Reaction score
3,508
Points
290
Location
Chicago
...they attack Cain saying he wants to end social security, but when you tell them his plan, they cower to a counter and say nothing!

It's like the goose and rdean ignoring every IL thread and the Chicago Democrat Corruption machine fucking the hard working workers in IL!
 

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,858
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
Mandating 10% of your salary go into investing? Wouldn't that be the government requiring you to buy a product or service from a private company? Wasn't that the beef about the healthcare mandate?
 

WatertheTree

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
1,804
Reaction score
170
Points
48
First, the changeover would make the whole process of retirement saving clearer in the United States, by allowing workers to keep and invest their own money rather than pay it into a system that promises them they will one day get it back.
Doesnt this really mean ending social security and then leaving people with no option but to invest in the stock/debt market. Which is really just a corrupt ponzi scheme? Would probably serve as a boost to stocks, untill the next greedy asshole steals all the money.

I say if we cant fix social security then just end government in the retirement business. Why is our government even in this debate. Let the people choose the best way for them to take care of themselves.

If we just reserved social security for the most needy we could cut the tax payments in half and still operate at a surplus. But no, even well to do people think they are entitled to the nanny state.
 

WatertheTree

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
1,804
Reaction score
170
Points
48
Mandating 10% of your salary go into investing? Wouldn't that be the government requiring you to buy a product or service from a private company? Wasn't that the beef about the healthcare mandate?
Its a different story if your giving money to wall street. That sums up the state of the government though, force the population to give 10% of there money to wall street to force a false boost in stock prices so the executives can rip us all off agian.

Yea Cain, thats what we want to do. Instead of letting wall street rape the greedy who choose risky investments, lets get the whole country involved with the ponzi scheme.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
Waterthe Tree opines:
force the population to give 10% of there money to wall street to force a false boost in stock prices so the executives can rip us all off agian.
Bingo!
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
51,759
Reaction score
16,191
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Doesnt this really mean ending social security and then leaving people with no option but to invest in the stock/debt market. Which is really just a corrupt ponzi scheme? Would probably serve as a boost to stocks, untill the next greedy asshole steals all the money.

I say if we cant fix social security then just end government in the retirement business. Why is our government even in this debate. Let the people choose the best way for them to take care of themselves.

If we just reserved social security for the most needy we could cut the tax payments in half and still operate at a surplus. But no, even well to do people think they are entitled to the nanny state.
First of all, you clearly know dick about the stock market because it is nothing close to a Ponzi scheme, but by all means, keep living in ignorance.

As for the rest of what you said, I am in agreement, the government shouldn't be involved in the retirement business, but the American people clearly support the longevity of Social Security by a significant margin. That being the case, we may as well improve upon it and adopting a Chilean like plan or the one similar to Galveston, TX would be a huge step forward. The status quo, of course, will fight this tooth and nail because adopting the Chilean plan would ultimately give people more control over their lives.
 

PeteEU

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
329
Reaction score
54
Points
78
Location
Malaga region, Spain
So Cain wants the US to go down the Chilean way?

He does realize that the "Chilean way" included a brutal dictator that made thousands of his own people disappear, harboured (on the behalf of the US) nazi war criminals and totally destroyed the country economically. The inequality is horrible in Chile and poverty is high. This is thanks to Cain's hero Pinochet and his right wing fascist government.

The administrative costs of these private "social security" companies is 15%+ of the contributions and has been much higher.

On top of that the contributions of 50% at least of the people are not enough to get the minimum guaranteed out of the system when they do retire, so in the end the government has to make up the difference. This in turn means that people have far less to live off... and it is very much dependent on the stock market, which as we all know is not doing so good. In Chile, retiring means poverty for many people...

Chile's privatised social security system is failing and has been failing for over a decade.
 

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
So Cain wants the US to go down the Chilean way?

He does realize that the "Chilean way" included a brutal dictator that made thousands of his own people disappear, harboured (on the behalf of the US) nazi war criminals and totally destroyed the country economically. The inequality is horrible in Chile and poverty is high. This is thanks to Cain's hero Pinochet and his right wing fascist government.

The administrative costs of these private "social security" companies is 15%+ of the contributions and has been much higher.

On top of that the contributions of 50% at least of the people are not enough to get the minimum guaranteed out of the system when they do retire, so in the end the government has to make up the difference. This in turn means that people have far less to live off... and it is very much dependent on the stock market, which as we all know is not doing so good. In Chile, retiring means poverty for many people...

Chile's privatised social security system is failing and has been failing for over a decade.
Thoughts on Galveston, TX plan? (See Second posting).
 

LoneLaugher

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
61,197
Reaction score
9,380
Points
2,040
Location
Inside Mac's Head
Can the OP find an article a little newer that advocates the Chilean Model? A lot has happened since 1996.
 

LoneLaugher

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
61,197
Reaction score
9,380
Points
2,040
Location
Inside Mac's Head
So Cain wants the US to go down the Chilean way?

He does realize that the "Chilean way" included a brutal dictator that made thousands of his own people disappear, harboured (on the behalf of the US) nazi war criminals and totally destroyed the country economically. The inequality is horrible in Chile and poverty is high. This is thanks to Cain's hero Pinochet and his right wing fascist government.

The administrative costs of these private "social security" companies is 15%+ of the contributions and has been much higher.

On top of that the contributions of 50% at least of the people are not enough to get the minimum guaranteed out of the system when they do retire, so in the end the government has to make up the difference. This in turn means that people have far less to live off... and it is very much dependent on the stock market, which as we all know is not doing so good. In Chile, retiring means poverty for many people...

Chile's privatised social security system is failing and has been failing for over a decade.
Thoughts on Galveston, TX plan? (See Second posting).
The fine people at Politi-fact did a nice job for us. It is not all it is cracked up to be. I wonder why Boortz didn't tell the whole story?

PolitiFact | Herman Cain touts alternative to Social Security used in Galveston, Texas
 
OP
GHook93

GHook93

Aristotle
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
20,150
Reaction score
3,508
Points
290
Location
Chicago
Mandating 10% of your salary go into investing? Wouldn't that be the government requiring you to buy a product or service from a private company? Wasn't that the beef about the healthcare mandate?
They already do that for social security! This is pretaxed dollars going to retirement 10 fold different. But I'm glad to know ur against Obamacare! :eusa_whistle:

Cain opposition to Obamacare goes well beyond the mandate the mandate is just away to kill it.
 
Last edited:

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,858
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
So you pay what, now? About 6% of your pay in the payroll tax, which goes to SS?

So you already have that 4% difference to invest as you wish, and much of that can be tax exempted, or deferred, via an IRA or the like.

Btw, I don't you get 12% a year in relatively safe investments over the long term, as is claimed in the OP. That's a wildly optimistic number.
 

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,858
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
Mandating 10% of your salary go into investing? Wouldn't that be the government requiring you to buy a product or service from a private company? Wasn't that the beef about the healthcare mandate?
They already do that for social security! This is prefaced dollars going to retirement 10 fold different. But I'm glad to know ur against Obamacare! :eusa_whistle:

Cain opposition to Obamacare goes well beyond the mandate the mandate is just away to kill it.
SS does not go to private companies; it can only go into treasuries.

Conservatives who think the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional want me to hand over 10% of my wages to a private company, to buy private investment products, and I'll pay a fee for it to boot.

And THAT is not unconstitutional, if you think Obamacare is unconstitutional??????
 

AVG-JOE

American Mutt
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
24,986
Reaction score
6,115
Points
280
Location
Your Imagination
First, the changeover would make the whole process of retirement saving clearer in the United States, by allowing workers to keep and invest their own money rather than pay it into a system that promises them they will one day get it back.
Doesnt this really mean ending social security and then leaving people with no option but to invest in the stock/debt market. Which is really just a corrupt ponzi scheme? Would probably serve as a boost to stocks, untill the next greedy asshole steals all the money.

I say if we cant fix social security then just end government in the retirement business. Why is our government even in this debate. Let the people choose the best way for them to take care of themselves.

If we just reserved social security for the most needy we could cut the tax payments in half and still operate at a surplus. But no, even well to do people think they are entitled to the nanny state.
Social Security can be saved with one move: Instead of investing the American Nest Egg in T-Bills and only T-Bills, hire three of those nasty banksters, currently tearing Wall Street a new asshole, to compete with each other on how much growth they can each inspire in the third of the pie they're responsible for. We could even pay them a commission based on the growth they achieve, to keep the entertainment value up.

The value of a public bureaucracy are two:

1) MUCH lower administrative costs, <5% compared to >22% for private bureaucracies.

2) Employees of a private bureaucracy are more concerned with denying your claim to meet they're bonus structure / Employees of a public bureaucracy truly don't care if you get approved or not, as long as the rules were properly employed and enforced.​
 

WatertheTree

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
1,804
Reaction score
170
Points
48
So you pay what, now? About 6% of your pay in the payroll tax, which goes to SS?

So you already have that 4% difference to invest as you wish, and much of that can be tax exempted, or deferred, via an IRA or the like.

Btw, I don't you get 12% a year in relatively safe investments over the long term, as is claimed in the OP. That's a wildly optimistic number.
No if I remember correctly from when I owned a business its 7.14% goes to social security, and then ofcourse your employer has to match it, so thats like 14% of an individuals money going to social security.

And liberals just dont understand why it must be shut down.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top