If Social Security Had Been In Private Accounts The Stock Market Drop Could Have Been A Disaster

[David_42]

The reality is different.

Yes it is.

And that should tell you that those thirty six percent are living below the poverty line.

I would never take that away from anyone who has put into the system.

But to advocate for a system that allows the elderly to waste away in poverty isn't doing anyone any good.

You do realize those seniors get access to other welfare programs that help them as well, and can save their own money throughout there life to supplement SS?

So what is your point ?

This was about advocating for more participation in savings.

Other welfare programs ? Did you read what you wrote ? You don't mind relegating seniors to welfare. S.S. is not welfare.

"statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need."

You can, at least, try to explain the point you wish to make.

This means nothing unless you somehow see it as a justification for welfare.

Do you think the elderly really want to soak their kids and grandkids ?

You claimed S.S. isn't welfare.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You're kidding yourself.

That age will raise and it's going to go a lot higher than people think it will. That or everyone's benefits will be cut.

Or we raise the contribution cap..

**** that. Go loot someone else.

What a cry baby. Keep drooling over anarchy.

Keep drooling over your Ponzi scheme. Its days are numbered.

We'll both be dead by the time that happens, if ever. Well, the world probably won't last for another 100 years, so it's whatever.

That was said by one of the early promoters when confonted with the long term issues of the program.

Guess what ?

She's dead and we are dealing with her brainless approach.

As I've said....it was needed at the time. Very needed. It did not have to be an everlasting program.

As a long term program, it could be a lot better.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes it is.

And that should tell you that those thirty six percent are living below the poverty line.

I would never take that away from anyone who has put into the system.

But to advocate for a system that allows the elderly to waste away in poverty isn't doing anyone any good.

You do realize those seniors get access to other welfare programs that help them as well, and can save their own money throughout there life to supplement SS?

So what is your point ?

This was about advocating for more participation in savings.

Other welfare programs ? Did you read what you wrote ? You don't mind relegating seniors to welfare. S.S. is not welfare.

"statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need."

You can, at least, try to explain the point you wish to make.

This means nothing unless you somehow see it as a justification for welfare.

Do you think the elderly really want to soak their kids and grandkids ?

You claimed S.S. isn't welfare.

It wasn't intended to be. Roosevelt had programs in front of him that were non contributory, but he felt people should pay their own way.

Are you saying the person who pays in his or her whole life and then collects is now getting welfare ?

 

[David_42]

You do realize those seniors get access to other welfare programs that help them as well, and can save their own money throughout there life to supplement SS?

So what is your point ?

This was about advocating for more participation in savings.

Other welfare programs ? Did you read what you wrote ? You don't mind relegating seniors to welfare. S.S. is not welfare.

"statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need."

You can, at least, try to explain the point you wish to make.

This means nothing unless you somehow see it as a justification for welfare.

Do you think the elderly really want to soak their kids and grandkids ?

You claimed S.S. isn't welfare.

It wasn't intended to be. Roosevelt had programs in front of him that were non contributory, but he felt people should pay their own way.

Are you saying the person who pays in his or her whole life and then collects is now getting welfare ?

Welfare: ""statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need."

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So what is your point ?

This was about advocating for more participation in savings.

Other welfare programs ? Did you read what you wrote ? You don't mind relegating seniors to welfare. S.S. is not welfare.

"statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need."

You can, at least, try to explain the point you wish to make.

This means nothing unless you somehow see it as a justification for welfare.

Do you think the elderly really want to soak their kids and grandkids ?

You claimed S.S. isn't welfare.

It wasn't intended to be. Roosevelt had programs in front of him that were non contributory, but he felt people should pay their own way.

Are you saying the person who pays in his or her whole life and then collects is now getting welfare ?

Welfare: ""statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need."

So is my 401K.

Fail.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

 

[Andylusion]

LOL..... You don't get it..... the system is going BROKE..... Do not understand BROKE? Our government can not afford it, and no amount of taxes is going to change it.

We can't afford the current system "Yeah but they love it"... and and the pensioners in Greece loved it.... and it still went broke. It is not sustainable, and you repeating that people like the going broke system, doesn't change the facts. The retirement age is going to go up.

It *WILL* happen. That's not even debatable.

Good grief... you are worse than my 5-year-old niece....."But I want it! I want it!".... doesn't matter darling.... I don't have the money.

Leftist- "But we like it! But we like it"

DOES NOT MATTER! WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY!

You keep saying people like it, as if that magically changes the dysfunction of the system... it does not.

Still bringing up greece, eh?
"
Increase the Payroll Tax Cap
The Social Security payroll tax currently applies to annual earnings up to $110,100. Any wages earned above $110,100 go untaxed for Social Security. This cap generally increases every year as the national average wage increases. Today, the cap covers about 84 percent of total earnings in the nation. Raising the cap to cover a higher percent of total earnings would help close Social Security’s funding gap. How much depends on how high the cap is set and how quickly the cap would be raised to reach that level. One commonly mentioned goal would raise the cap to cover 90 percent of all earnings, which in 2012 would have meant a cap of about $215,000. This would mean any employee earning more than the current tax cap of $110,100 (as well as his or her employer) would have to pay more payroll taxes, up to about $6,500 per year for those earning $215,000 a year or more. Raising the cap to 90 percent is estimated to fill 36 percent of the funding gap.

PRO: Lifting the cap to cover 90 percent of all earnings is sensible and fair. Only 6 percent of workers earn more than the current cap of $110,100. It is fair for top earners to pay more into Social Security, and they would get a bit more in benefits. This change reflects the intent of Congress in 1977, when it set the cap to include 90 percent of earnings. Congress also provided for automatic adjustments for average wage growth so that the cap would continue to cover 90 percent. But with today’s top earners enjoying much bigger gains than everyone else, the cap now covers only about 84 percent of all earnings. This proposal, together with other changes, could keep Social Security strong and pay for benefit improvements. (Virginia Reno, National Academy of Social Insurance)
"

We've already covered this. When you increase taxes, people will change their compensation, to reduce their tax burden. The entire claim is false. It's been proven many many times.

And it also ignores that people in the top 90% of earnings, would also demand more benefits, which is right for them to do. You don't get to take our money, for nothing. That was the whole reason we had a revolution against Briton. When you include higher benefits, you won't stabilize Social Security for any amount of time.

But keep spewing your already disproved claims over and over, and we'll keep shooting them down over and over.

The same argument has been used over and over again, you're wrong. The world didn't collapse when the MW was put in place, workers benefited, and they still do, same with welfare programs. The top 90% would demand more benefits? Like what?

And yet, the unemployment rates have increased every single time the minimum wage has significantly increased, and I posted proof that unemployment is higher in EU countries that have a MW, over those that do not.

So, apparently you are wrong. It has harmed the workers. I never suggested the world would end. Only that low-skilled workers would be harmed, and the evidence shows that.

More Social Security payouts relative to their increased Social Security tax. Which is exactly what the last bill to increase the wage cap included.

You fail to recognize those EU countries without minimum wages have extremely strong labor unions and things such as: Guaranteed maternity leave, guaranteed paid sick leave, etc, etc..
The evidence doesn't show that, at all, and your unemployment rate claim is bullshit, the MW has been here for decades and unemployment constantly changes, without the MW, sure, unemployment would be down, with workers making $3 an hour.

Not true. Many of the countries without any minimum wage, have very little labor unions.

Austria- No minimum wage. Union participation 25%
Denmark- No minimum wage. Union participation 66%
Finland- No minimum wage. Union participation 68%
Iceland- No minimum wage. Union participation 82%
Italy- No minimum wage. Union participation 36%
Norway- No minimum wage. Union participation 53%
Sweden- No minimum wage. Union participation 67%
Switzerland- No minimum wage. Union participation 16%

Singapore- No minimum wage. Union participation 18%

Even with the countries with high union participation, the Unions have very little influence on prices.

Take Iceland for example. The Union minimum wages are completely useless. The natural market wage rates are often double the Union wages. No one works for the minimum wage.

https://portal.mpsv.cz/eures/podmin...a_pracovni_podminky_statu_eu/island_-_law.pdf

Even Iceland's government itself admits this.

A skilled tradesmen will work for literally double the price of the "union" wage.
Nearly all of them work for double the "union" wage. No one works the union wages.

Even the Unskilled "laborer" guys work for wages that are double the Unskilled Union "Laborer" wage.

By the way.... I would suggest to you that this is exactly why Union participation in Iceland is so high. When you jack up the wages, beyond the "free-market" wage... that's when jobs are lost, and non-union employment takes over.

Iceland's Union have wisely not tried to jack up the Union wage rates above the market... thus there is no natural movement away from the Unions.

But it's not the unions that drove up wages, it was free-market Capitalism that did it.

And by the way, this alone, proves that employers will pay more for labor, when there is a natural market pushing wages up. None of those employers are under any legal, or Union obligation to pay double the Union wage..... yet they do.

"But but the wealthy hold people down! We need laws! Blaw blaw blaw!" Apparently you are wrong.

And then even within those countries which have a minimum wage.....

Germany didn't have a minimum wage at all until this year, and during the 2008 crash, while our unemployment was going up, while the EU unemployment was going up, their unemployment rate only went up 0.8% from Oct 08, to July 09. And was falling the rest of the time.

Moreover, union wages in Germany had many exemptions. Trainees, apprenticeship positions, seasonal workers... all of them were exempt from Union minimum wages. Even the newly formed minimum wage in Germany, has the same exemptions, including some you wouldn't think. Those who have been unemployed over a year, are exempt from the minimum wage. Interns are exempt from the minimum wage.

http://www.reedsmith.com/files/uplo...2014/Spielberger-Schilling_LAJ_03-14_Fall.pdf

It's all there.

 

[Jarlaxle]

What anecdotal evidence are you referencing.

I agree that there is no support for the claim being made, but it is a general claim.

Why is raising the retirement age cruel. The retirement age was originally set at 65. Live expectancy was barely above that when it was formed. Our life expectancy is now much longer. I don't get your logic.

Actually, life expectancy was LESS than 65 when it was implemented. It didn't reach 65 for women until 1938, and didn't reach it for men until 1949! In other words: when Social Security was passed, most people DIED before they collected anything!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

For all you anit-stock market types....I have a question......

Which means I have a question for myself because I don't want to turn base funds over to the market....but it bears worth asking.

Do large pension funds invest in the stock market ?

 

[Andylusion]

Or we raise the contribution cap..

**** that. Go loot someone else.

What a cry baby. Keep drooling over anarchy.

Keep drooling over your Ponzi scheme. Its days are numbered.

We'll both be dead by the time that happens, if ever. Well, the world probably won't last for another 100 years, so it's whatever.

That was said by one of the early promoters when confonted with the long term issues of the program.

Guess what ?

She's dead and we are dealing with her brainless approach.

As I've said....it was needed at the time. Very needed. It did not have to be an everlasting program.

As a long term program, it could be a lot better.

Actually I would deny even that. There was no demand for SS at all at the time. It had to be sold with slick marketing to drum up support.