Herman Cain's Social Security Plan - Chilean Way

[AVG-JOE]

There's two programs under Title 2 of the Social Security Act... What does Chili do for Disability?

I have my own thoughts on the SSA DIB program, but I'm curious as to whether or not the Chilean program addresses it at all.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

explain the safe investment.

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

 

[WatertheTree]

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.​

The best move to save social security is an idea brought about by the protestors which holds great merit if given ample consideration.

That is the immeadiate aquisition of the Federal Reserve by the congress for 1 billion dollars.

The profits would be applied to the debt untill its paid off, then if the people choose to keep this monetary policy (not my choice) then the profits can be used to fund the government. IE the nanny state. I would rather see the federal reserve start dealing in currency that is actually backed by gold and silver after the debt is paid. And of course money issued would have no interest rate attached to it.

But that is a debate for another time.

 

[edthecynic]

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.​

So Cain can do for SS what he did for the employee's retirement fund at AQUILA!!!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

explain the safe investment.

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

You're implying that the US government might default on its debt? And you think the stock market will be a safe place to be if that happens?

 

[GHook93]

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!

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??????

First, you already give up 15% in the payroll taxes (which also includes other things other than SS), so you argument on 10% makes no sense and stinks of partisanship!

Social security is a MUST! It can't go away like the Ron Paul supporters want. HOWEVER, some big change is needed. It already takes up 21% of the budget and it's still well into the red.

Chile has the best system in the world. They corrected from financial breakdown by going this route in the 80s and now they are the first 1st world country in Latin America.

Liberals always tell us to learn from other countries like the ones in Europe! Well maybe we should learn from other countries, starting with Chile!!!

Also your deflection on Obamacare being unconstitutional is a red herring. Anything can be made constitutional with a constitutional amendment!

 

[Sallow]

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.

How about the Stock Market is legalized gambling.

And yeah..go on tell me how I know "nothing" about it.

I worked for the NYSE for 13 years. Heck..I rang the bell once..and was on the podium 3 times.

 

[GHook93]

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.

Um no it doesn't you little fool! Please read the articles I provided if you need an education. All social security is, is a forced retirement. Right now it gets put into a general fund and make 0% to negative interest, to which the government regularly raids for other uses. This system is on an individual basis.

Chile has had an average 12% return, the US social security has had an average of -5% return (much higher for wealthier Americans). For terms you can understand - Chilean Way: For $100 you get $112 back; The American SS: For every $100 you $95 back. I would say it's night and day on which is better

 

[GHook93]

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.

You do realize the stock market has grown ever since it's exsistence. There have been time of downtime, but it has grown.

I love the greedy stock market executives, when they don't want to acknowledge the greedy government politicians guarantee a social security growth of -5%!

You call investing for retirement a ponzi scheme, yet government social security who promise a negative return and regularly raid the funds for their own use is not! LOL you are either a minimum wage socialist or a little kid still living off the parents.

And you don't need to explain anything to Cain, he has more knowledge in his pinky toe that 2 million leftist!

 

[healthmyths]

You wrote "Mandating 10% of your salary go into investing?"
So you would be against a 23 year old entering work force to allow the "mandatory" i.e. Govt. taxes from paycheck.. payroll taxes put into a FDIC insured savings account that over 47 years (age 70 for math challenged!) that compound interest over 47 years of 4.5% grows to $1 million?
Why are you in favor of government TAKING money out of a (mandated) check and spending it rather then letting the worker accumulate $1 million?
The majority of detractors of privatizing SS use the premise it is buying stocks and they naively use the term "gambling"!
BUT over 40 years the "market" has grown at 8% and if a logical plan i.e. stocks when young bonds when older.. the individual would have $3.2 million!
And you are against the ordinary American saving and having millions at retirement?

 

[GHook93]

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!

Bingo, lol you fools don't even know where the mark is. First, through payroll taxes you already contribute a ton to forced retirement. Second, the boom was created by the CLINTON administration and Gingrich lead regulations. Gramm-Leach Bliley that got rid of the Glass-Steagell Act (If this one move was not done by Clinton then AIG wouldn't have been able to do what they did) and the Community Reinvestment Act that FORCED banks to lend. Not to mention the Clinton Adm allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to create an artificial secondary market for mortgages. But I digress. Third, the current SS system guarantees a negative return, but the Chilean way has been reaping the Chileans a 12% return.

Lastly, where do you think the money a company gets from selling stocks goes to? A socialist fool like you would say to line executive's pockets. Nothing could be further from the truth. I work for a large company that went from private to public. What did the do with the money they raised: (1) Created a new sales team call the verticals - added close to 100 sales people in the US right their, (2) Hired 30 scientist for our decisioning software products, (3) Hired 15 more product managers for new products to hit the market, (4) Purchased other a few other companies to enhance our products, (5) Entered Brazil, Argentina, Russia and India! Having SS invest in America would actually help the economy not hurt it!

 

[GHook93]

You clearly didn't read the articles or will you acknowledge the fact that countries (BRIC) countries are lining up to get Chile's advice on how to implement the system.

You clearly will ignore that the current system is running at unsustainable levels!

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.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

explain the safe investment.

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

You're implying that the US government might default on its debt? And you think the stock market will be a safe place to be if that happens?

Explain the safe investment.

IS IT THAT FUCKING HARD?

AND ONE OF THE FAVORITES.

Come on lucy speak up!!!

 

[healthmyths]

PolticFACT??? Owned by the Pravda WEST or Sp Times!

Most of Politifact support democrat/liberal/progressive ideology and you tell me..
They gave Obama a "half truth" for example on this totally false STATEMENT!
Barack Obama says construction workers pay higher tax rate than someone earning $50 million a year--BIG LIE!
The same chart provides a figure for returns with at least $10 million in adjusted gross income. There were 11,050 returns in this category, and their effective federal income tax rate ranged from 17.9 percent to 28.5 percent, depending on which of the three filing categories they fell into.

Clearly, then, the $10 million plus crowd is paying a higher average tax rate than the $50,000 to $75,000 crowd. But remember that Obama said $50 million, not $10 million. Does the math change for those who are even richer?

The best data we could find addresses the 400 highest-income taxpayers in the nation. In 2008, the cutoff to make it into this rarefied group was an income of $109.7 million -- which is above Obama’s $50 million threshold. These taxpayers had an average federal income tax rate of 18.1 percent, which is also higher than the rate paid by the $50,000 to $75,000 crowd.

The bottom line is that taxpayers in Obama’s construction-worker income range tended to pay an effective federal income tax rate of 7 percent to 8 percent

AND you for political ideology said Obama rated a "half truth"!
HALF TRUTH???
Total lie and that's a half TRUTH?

 

[healthmyths]

Huh... you evidently are unaware of the FACT the employer also pays 6.2% so there is a total of 12.4% paid in...
And using privatized you don't have to put into the stock market which by the way has averaged 8% growth over 40 years.. here are the facts..
Dow Jones History

So why are you against the ordinary American simply through setting aside forced savings into savings account accumulating over $1 million???

 

[GHook93]

What are other countries that have gone to privatization?

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2007ltr.pdf
the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Chile are the most frequently cited examples of privatized systems

 

[NYcarbineer]

explain the safe investment.

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

You're implying that the US government might default on its debt? And you think the stock market will be a safe place to be if that happens?

Explain the safe investment.

IS IT THAT FUCKING HARD?

AND ONE OF THE FAVORITES.

Come on lucy speak up!!!

I said a relatively safe investment. That means a low risk investment.

 

[GHook93]

There's two programs under Title 2 of the Social Security Act... What does Chili do for Disability?

I have my own thoughts on the SSA DIB program, but I'm curious as to whether or not the Chilean program addresses it at all.

I think it's on back 3 of the attached article in the OP (the SSA one not the other one).

Chile has a test for disabled people, then these people get benefits like any other entitlement program would provide.

 

[GHook93]

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.​

The best move to save social security is an idea brought about by the protestors which holds great merit if given ample consideration.

That is the immeadiate aquisition of the Federal Reserve by the congress for 1 billion dollars.

The profits would be applied to the debt untill its paid off, then if the people choose to keep this monetary policy (not my choice) then the profits can be used to fund the government. IE the nanny state. I would rather see the federal reserve start dealing in currency that is actually backed by gold and silver after the debt is paid. And of course money issued would have no interest rate attached to it.

But that is a debate for another time.

So let me get this straight the OWJ protesters want the government to use the federal reserve to pay for social security and a ZILLION other retirements. So what do you do after year one when the money is SPENT!!! The Federal Reserve will be tapped (meaning the government will have no backing) and inflation will set into hyper inflation (because a country without reserves needs to print money)! At the point we can have the government invest in wheel-barrels, because Americans will need wheel-barrels in order to buy a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk!

 

[Full-Auto]

You're implying that the US government might default on its debt? And you think the stock market will be a safe place to be if that happens?

Explain the safe investment.

IS IT THAT FUCKING HARD?

AND ONE OF THE FAVORITES.

Come on lucy speak up!!!

I said a relatively safe investment. That means a low risk investment.

Low risk? Yes printing money out of thin air lowers risk. Sure low risk.

As long as we can borrow money your investment is safe with us.

Should I snap to and salute?