Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,622
- 910
That's nice. Keep your mits off social security. You go gamble down at the casino.
How social security system really works
- Thread starter timslash
- Start date
That's nice. Keep your mits off social security. You go gamble down at the casino.
I was forced to pay for Social Security and so I will keep my mitts on it if you don't mind. I don't go to casino's, and investment in American industry is about as good as it gets. I could put my savings in a bank savings account and get 0.4% interest, but I won't do that either.
Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,622
- 910
Everyone else has paid in as well. You have no right to destroy it because you want to get your mits on all that money.
How would I go about getting all of that money, even if I wanted too? Privatizing a portion of someone's contribution to Social Security and putting it in an account in that person's name that they could cash in or pass on to their heirs while making a decent ROI in the market sounds like a damned good idea to me. I sure hope you aren't planning on living on Social Security when you get 65.
Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,622
- 910
I'm not planning on it but I have seen repeatedly the damage done by greedy little gambling financial advisers. You should never privatize any aspect of it.
Dad2three
Gold Member
Bankstesr drool about getting that type of windfall, if the financialization of the US economy the pass 30-+ years hadn't taught you yet, it's a poor idea to go private, look to Chile for an example. Sure maybe 20%-25% will make out, the rest will probably lose in the INSURANCE SYSTEM it's supposed to be!
Dad2three
Gold Member
2005 - Privatized Social Security a Failure in Chile:
Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall in Private Plan
Nearly 25 years ago, Chile embarked on a sweeping experiment that has since been emulated, in one way or another, in a score of other countries. Rather than finance pensions through a system to which workers, employers and the government all contributed, millions of people began to pay 10 percent of their salaries to private investment accounts that they controlled.
...-
But now that the first generation of workers to depend on the new system is beginning to retire, Chileans are finding that it is falling far short of what was originally advertised under the authoritarian government of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.
For all the program's success in economic terms, the government continues to direct billions of dollars to a safety net for those whose contributions were not large enough to ensure even a minimum pension approaching $140 a month. Many others - because they earned much of their income in the underground economy, are self-employed, or work only seasonally - remain outside the system altogether. Combined, those groups constitute roughly half the Chilean labor force. Only half of workers are captured by the system.
Even many middle-class workers who contributed regularly are finding that their private accounts - burdened with hidden fees that may have soaked up as much as a third of their original investment - are failing to deliver as much in benefits as they would have received if they had stayed in the old system.
Dagoberto Sáez, for example, is a 66-year-old laboratory technician here who plans, because of a recent heart attack, to retire in March. He earns just under $950 a month; his pension fund has told him that his nearly 24 years of contributions will finance a 20-year annuity paying only $315 a month.
"Colleagues and friends with the same pay grade who stayed in the old system, people who work right alongside me," he said, "are retiring with pensions of almost $700 a month - good until they die. I have a salary that allows me to live with dignity, and all of a sudden I am going to be plunged into poverty, all because I made the mistake of believing the promises they made to us back in 1981."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27pension.html?_r=0
Dad2three
Gold Member
In a 2004 report on human development in Chile, the United Nations Development Program found that: Half of Chile's six million workers will not qualify for any Social Security benefits when they retire. Another 25 percent will save so little, due to low salaries and high investment account fees, that they will only get the guaranteed poverty-level benefit. Chile's private pension companies collected $4.5 billion in fees between 1982 and 1988, "more than a fifth of net contributions to the system."
But a second study, by the Chilean brokerage firm CB Capitales, exposed that as a lie, finding: When fees are figured in, the real annual rate of return was just 5.1 percent since 1982. Workers would have done better putting money in 90-day certificates of deposit (CDs) in banks. A young worker just starting out would have lost 6.6 percent through 1998. The same worker's account would have gone up 42 percent in bank CDs. The private pension companies reaped $808 million in profits, making gains of 20 percent even in years when private accounts lost money.
Privatized Social Security a Failure in Chile Ignoring Senior Poverty Crisis Bush Calls Broken Chilean System a Communications Workers of America
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
The money men of Wall Street have been trying to get their greedy mitts on SS ever since it went into effect. Never, never let that happen. That would be the end of retirement without poverty for most Americans. SS has been one of the most effectively ran systems that our government has. And it is flexible enough that people have the choice of continueing to work after their retirement age, and either drawing SS or letting it accumulate until they are 72. It is a good system as it is. To increase the fund, simply raise the level of cutoff to the top, and make the 6.2% we all personally contribute also apply to unearned income.
He's in his 30's. He's getting nothing. He paid into the hope you die before we have to pay you anything system.
Are you saying that those that are low wage earners all of their life would not remain in poverty when they retire on the Social Security benefits they would get?
You do know that the benefits paid out at retirement are based on the amount paid in. If you raise the level of the cutoff, the payout would have to be raised. I don't see any net benefit to doing that.
Those "greedy little gambling financial advisers" got me a retirement income of 5 digits a month. And I retired 10 years early, and didn't get Social Security. I must admit that for most of those years I had a self-directed IRA and bought and sold stocks myself. My company 401K was handled by one of those "greedy" investment firms, and when I early retired I got a little over $500,000 payout that I put in an IRA to avoid paying income taxes on it.
Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,622
- 910
Congratulations. Then, clearly, there is no need for you to hijack SS.
I watched a lot of people lose everything from this past financial crisis from those greedy financial advisers.
Last edited:
I have seen my portfolio drop as much as 50% twice. It is now back up to where it was in 2007. And it is a shame that people lose money in the stock market, but it is like any other investment. You win some you lose some. That is the reason for diversifying your investments. How is your collection of Beanie Babies doing?
I paid the premiums for Social Security and I intend to collecting the benefits that I paid for. It has nothing to do with my need, and perhaps you need to look up the word 'hijack' unless you are a shithead and meant it as a insult.
Everything but their Social Security Retirement, Disability and Survivors Insurance Benefits, that is.
Ass-U-Me-ing of course that they acquire enough quarters of coverage to create a benefit, which ain't hard at all
Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,622
- 910
You win some and you lose some?
Gambling.
Listen. Once upon a time people went to work and put their money in a pension.
Couldn't stand the fact that there was all that money that the greedy financial advisers couldn't get their little grubby paws on. So, they held classes and brought pie charts and graphs and moved the money. Remember that?
Talked about having control. So, all of these people that were well trained in their career now had beautiful plans with alleged control when they had zero background in the stock market.
The world doesn't revolve around you. I'm glad you made out like a bandit.
Do not destroy what we have in place for situations like the one we just had simply because you think it's skippy.
Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,622
- 910
Everything but their Social Security Retirement, Disability and Survivors Insurance Benefits, that is.
Ass-U-Me-ing of course that they acquire enough quarters of coverage to create a benefit, which ain't hard at all
Yep.
You're right. It's not that hard. This is why I have a problem with stay at home parents collecting for unearned work on their parts.
Huh? I'm not familiar with that part of the program, and I'm pretty familiar with the program 
Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,622
- 910
Huh? I'm not familiar with that part of the program, and I'm pretty familiar with the program
Let's say that you work and your wife is a stay at home parent. You retire and begin to collect Social security. She doesn't have enough quarters or none at all. She uses yours. She gets a check that is equal to half of your social security check.
Retirement Planner Benefits For Your Spouse
What you call gambling, I call investing. Those that have zero background in the market should definitely not invest in the market. It is not difficult to get a prospectus from a company that someone is interested in before deciding to buy their stock or not.
Once upon a time company pensions were provided to employees and they were free of charge. A number of years ago many companies went to a 401K plan where the employee could put a certain percentage of his gross pay into the plan and the company matched part of the investment. Most 401K's allowed the employee to pick the investments such as 40% stocks, 40% bonds and 20% money market or any other combination they preferred. I considered the 'gamblers' those that chose 100% stocks, and didn't go that route.
One of the advantages was the employee contribution to and earnings of the 401K plan were not taxable until the money was withdrawn at retirement.
I have no desire to destroy anything, but I do see an opportunity that was missed to increase the ROI for millions that are locked in to a bankrupt Social Security system.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
scientist programing brain cells like a biological computer!- Started by Slyhunter
- Replies: 2
-
Trump slammed for wearing golf hat at slain soldiers dignified transfer ceremony.- Started by ElmerMudd
- Replies: 9
-
-
