Privatize % of SS ?

[FA_Q2]

Sorry. It's not a Ponzi Scheme either.

But it's not a Ponzi scheme. And Ponzi himself, who died in a hospital charity ward with only enough money for his burial, would never have recognized it as his own.

Why Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme - Jan. 7, 2009

Your link essentially sates that SS is not a ponzi scheme because the government told the people the system and did not conceal it so it is not a ponzi scheme even though it does the exact same thing. Ya, that's real reassuring....

 

[DaGoose]

Of course none of you who think SS is a Ponzi Scheme would ever think of signing up when your time comes, right?

Of course though, like a bunch of hypocrites you'll be right in front of the line with your hands out saying "Gimme gimme gimme".

And don't try and deny it.....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Privatize public education first, K through 12, and Soc. Sec. changes become largely unnecessary.

Unfortunately, you still have to do something about all the people who are already past primary school education.

But I'm with you on the privatizing public education idea. My teenaged son, who has been homeschooled his entire life until this year, is now attending a charter school. While charter schools operate in theory as public schools, in that they don't charge tuition and are open to essentially anyone, this school ALSO does not take public money. It funds its operations solely (and very well) strictly on its own profits.

"How does a school make profits?" you ask. In this case, it does so by offering its students the option of what are essentially trade-school classes, which function as businesses offering services to the community. For example, the auto shop classes are taught in an actual, working auto repair shop. The photography classes are taught in a professional photography studio. The school has a printing shop that, among other things, does automobile wraps for businesses looking to use their company cars as advertisements. So the students not only work on their academics AND learn profitable skills, they ALSO learn the necessary skills of holding down a job and how to conduct oneself as an employee.

You must have grown up in a city because many, if not most small towns do not have an auto dealership and the back yard shade tree mechanics are probably not the best teachers. The same goes for newspapers, beauty shops, factories, etc.. Believe it or not my wife goes to a local vet (doggy doctor) to get her nails done which is done part time by the receptionist.

Basically what you are advocating are trade schools for children. And that wouldn't go over too well for our lack of scientists, engineers, etc. in this nation.

First of all, dipshit, who said anything about "backyard shade tree mechanics"? The mechanics who run the school's auto shop and also teach are fully certified, just as you would find at any good repair shop.

Second, what difference does it make if a town has an auto dealership? There's no town in America that doesn't have CARS or need them fixed. Which, by the way, is why most if not all high schools offer auto shop classes.

If your wife wants to get her nails done by a receptionist, that's her lookout. Personally, I prefer someone licensed by the state board of cosmetology, and I really doubt there's not a licensed manicurist somewhere near you.

Basically, yes, I do advocate trade school training for adolescents if that's what they want to do, although not all privatized public schools need to operate exactly as my son's school does. There's nothing about offering such training to those who want it that's going to reduce the number of scientists available, because the people who want it weren't going to become scientists in the first place. The vast majority of people in this country DON'T become scientists, or go into the professions, and they DO still need to learn employable skills. And EVERYONE could use a little training in holding a job and being a good employee, in my opinion, whatever they wind up doing in life.

Furthermore, you are making a massive assumption that my son's school does not still teach standard academics. I can't imagine WHY you would make that assumption, other than just a kneejerk desire to attack me, because I did mention academics. All of that is still covered, and the students are fully capable of going on to college if they wish, as many of them actually do. The trade courses are electives, and not everyone chooses to take them. Many of the students take more traditional electives, such as art, music, or woodshop, or unusual non-profit electives, such as dance, yoga, computer graphics, or special effects. This last is my son's favorite, and last night, he came home and showed me his middle finger, carefully done up in a box as a severed digit. ::sigh::

For the record, by the way, I didn't grow up in a city. I grew up in a pissant small town in New Mexico, which nevertheless did offer the electives of auto shop, wood shop, and photography. They just didn't teach them in a real-world, "this is how you work in this field" sort of way.

 

[boedicca]

I've paid a small fortune to the government in SS since my very first pay check. It's my money.

That said, I'd happily forgo my benefits if I could stop paying any additional SS taxes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course none of you who think SS is a Ponzi Scheme would ever think of signing up when your time comes, right?

Of course though, like a bunch of hypocrites you'll be right in front of the line with your hands out saying "Gimme gimme gimme".

And don't try and deny it.....

Again, you did not answer the question.
Given that these 'assets' are nothing but placeholders for money that was spent elsewhere, where will the money for these 'trust fund assets' come from?

 

[boedicca]

The money will come from (increased) taxes on younger workers.

I do think the entire mess is ready to explode. Considering how the Bright Lights of Government and Academia have enabled massive education debt over the past twenty years, it's going to be difficult to raise taxes on people who are crushed by student loan debt to the point where they can't save to buy a home and start a family.

The Big Government Bubble is a burstin'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Back up what? You made zero sense in your post and still have not addressed ONE post that I have made on this subject. Make a challenge against what I have posted. I have a feeling that you cannot.

Wow, just wow. Do you not even see how asinine a statement like that is? To add insult to injury, there is not even a point there...

That's what you said. You want me to make a challenge to that?

I suggest you go back to what I originally said and demonstrate specifically how it is inaccurate.

Actually, I was referring to the other 5 or 6 posts where I clearly state my case.

We're dealing with this post first. So put up or shut up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And for people under a certain age, Social Security is just pouring money down a rathole, because unless something changes drastically and soon, it's not going to exist by the time they retire. And they know it.

It's a Ponzi Scheme.

When SS started, there were more than 40 tax payers per beneficiary. We are now down to 3:1, with a ratio of 2:1 in the not so distant future. It's unsustainable.

The only rational and fair solution is to phase in privatization and means testing. The residual program after full implementation should be a safety net for those who truly are poor - and not a national retirement income entitlement.

Sorry. It's not a Ponzi Scheme either.

But it's not a Ponzi scheme. And Ponzi himself, who died in a hospital charity ward with only enough money for his burial, would never have recognized it as his own.

Why Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme - Jan. 7, 2009

From your own link:

First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled . . . Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns. (Of course, it's true that if [Bernie] Madoff had the power to require participation, he would have had an easier time keeping his alleged scheme rolling.)

So THIS argument is basically that it's not a Ponzi scheme because, instead of lying and tricking people into being ripped off, the government is shrugging and saying, "Yeah, you're being ripped off, and we're not promising jack shit in return for it, and you have no choice about it. Now give us your money."

Second, Social Security isn't automatically doomed to fail. Played out to its logical conclusion, a Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted . . . But Social Security can be, and has been, tweaked and modified to reflect changes in the size of the taxpaying workforce and the number of beneficiaries. It would take great political will, but the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing.

So THIS argument is that because the government can just force participation, expand it and the cost of it at will, and can't be stopped by arrest, like a con man can, it's not a Ponzi scheme.

Third, Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme and fundamentally different from what Madoff allegedly did. At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see "Social") resolved to create a safety net (see "Security") in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones. That might rankle, but it's not fraud.

Summarized, THIS argument is that Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme because we're all being ripped off "for our own good", with really, REALLY good intentions.

You're right. It's not a Ponzi scheme. It's worse.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, it doesn't. There's no investment, just an accounting entry.
The money no longer exists, and the accouting ledger can be wiped clear at any time.

That's like saying that the money the Chinese put into U.S. treasuries no longer exists, or the money millions of Americans use to buy U.S. bills, notes, and bonds no longer exists.

When you are upside down by $14,000,000,000,000... there is no money.

SS is a "pay as you go" system and will more than likely be upside down in terms of receipts vs. outlays in about six years. Then they will have to start drawing down the so called Trust Fund. Problem: The trust fund is U.S. Treasuries, i.e., it has all been loaned back to the U.S. Government.

Which also backs up my original point. S.S. is funded by its own revenue, the payroll tax. The fact that it has its money invested in Treasuries, supposedly the safest investment in the world, is only a problem if the U.S. government defaults. That in no way makes social security the problem.If the U.S. government defaults, S.S. will be the least of our problems.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, it doesn't. There's no investment, just an accounting entry.
The money no longer exists, and the accouting ledger can be wiped clear at any time.

That's like saying that the money the Chinese put into U.S. treasuries no longer exists, or the money millions of Americans use to buy U.S. bills, notes, and bonds no longer exists.

No... its not... because those things are not accounting entries.

I have no idea what you're talking about, which means we finally have something in common because obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

The payroll tax is real money, paid by real Americans. It is not an 'accounting entry'.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Of course none of you who think SS is a Ponzi Scheme would ever think of signing up when your time comes, right?

Of course though, like a bunch of hypocrites you'll be right in front of the line with your hands out saying "Gimme gimme gimme".

And don't try and deny it.....

Yes, knowing something is a Ponzi scheme in which we were forced to participate should logically translate into us NOT demanding our initial investment back. That makes PERFECT sense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hey, people, our idiot Congress AND President just gave you a cut on your payroll tax,

so you can take that money and stick it in the stock market. There's your privatization.

Happy now?

 

[boedicca]

That's like saying that the money the Chinese put into U.S. treasuries no longer exists, or the money millions of Americans use to buy U.S. bills, notes, and bonds no longer exists.

No... its not... because those things are not accounting entries.

I have no idea what you're talking about, which means we finally have something in common because obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

The payroll tax is real money, paid by real Americans. It is not an 'accounting entry'.

You really are dense.

There is no SS Trust Fund stuffed with that Real Money Paid by Americans.

The trust fund is a bunch of accounting entries which are basically IOUs to be paid by future taxpayers (who have no say in the matter and didn't agree to this appalling arrangement).

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which also backs up my original point. S.S. is funded by its own revenue, the payroll tax. The fact that it has its money invested in Treasuries, supposedly the safest investment in the world, is only a problem if the U.S. government defaults.

Where will the money to repay these 'trust fund t-bills' come from?

 

[DaGoose]

Unfortunately, you still have to do something about all the people who are already past primary school education.

But I'm with you on the privatizing public education idea. My teenaged son, who has been homeschooled his entire life until this year, is now attending a charter school. While charter schools operate in theory as public schools, in that they don't charge tuition and are open to essentially anyone, this school ALSO does not take public money. It funds its operations solely (and very well) strictly on its own profits.

"How does a school make profits?" you ask. In this case, it does so by offering its students the option of what are essentially trade-school classes, which function as businesses offering services to the community. For example, the auto shop classes are taught in an actual, working auto repair shop. The photography classes are taught in a professional photography studio. The school has a printing shop that, among other things, does automobile wraps for businesses looking to use their company cars as advertisements. So the students not only work on their academics AND learn profitable skills, they ALSO learn the necessary skills of holding down a job and how to conduct oneself as an employee.

You must have grown up in a city because many, if not most small towns do not have an auto dealership and the back yard shade tree mechanics are probably not the best teachers. The same goes for newspapers, beauty shops, factories, etc.. Believe it or not my wife goes to a local vet (doggy doctor) to get her nails done which is done part time by the receptionist.

Basically what you are advocating are trade schools for children. And that wouldn't go over too well for our lack of scientists, engineers, etc. in this nation.

First of all, dipshit, who said anything about "backyard shade tree mechanics"? The mechanics who run the school's auto shop and also teach are fully certified, just as you would find at any good repair shop.

Second, what difference does it make if a town has an auto dealership? There's no town in America that doesn't have CARS or need them fixed. Which, by the way, is why most if not all high schools offer auto shop classes.

If your wife wants to get her nails done by a receptionist, that's her lookout. Personally, I prefer someone licensed by the state board of cosmetology, and I really doubt there's not a licensed manicurist somewhere near you.

Basically, yes, I do advocate trade school training for adolescents if that's what they want to do, although not all privatized public schools need to operate exactly as my son's school does. There's nothing about offering such training to those who want it that's going to reduce the number of scientists available, because the people who want it weren't going to become scientists in the first place. The vast majority of people in this country DON'T become scientists, or go into the professions, and they DO still need to learn employable skills. And EVERYONE could use a little training in holding a job and being a good employee, in my opinion, whatever they wind up doing in life.

Furthermore, you are making a massive assumption that my son's school does not still teach standard academics. I can't imagine WHY you would make that assumption, other than just a kneejerk desire to attack me, because I did mention academics. All of that is still covered, and the students are fully capable of going on to college if they wish, as many of them actually do. The trade courses are electives, and not everyone chooses to take them. Many of the students take more traditional electives, such as art, music, or woodshop, or unusual non-profit electives, such as dance, yoga, computer graphics, or special effects. This last is my son's favorite, and last night, he came home and showed me his middle finger, carefully done up in a box as a severed digit. ::sigh::

For the record, by the way, I didn't grow up in a city. I grew up in a pissant small town in New Mexico, which nevertheless did offer the electives of auto shop, wood shop, and photography. They just didn't teach them in a real-world, "this is how you work in this field" sort of way.

PUBLIC school auto and wood shop, I'll bet.

Actually I felt you attacked all small towns with the assumption that they all have people to teach them all of those trades outside of the school system. They don't. Around here if you don't go to a shade tree mechanic then you have your car towed over 30 miles away.

And if you think computer graphics and special effects are "non-profit" electives....

I'm not saying that trade schools are bad. I think they're great. But I felt you were saying ALL kids should go to trade schools instead of becoming scientists, doctors, lawyers, vets, etc..

That is just plain funny about your son. He could have a career in "Special Effects".

 

[FA_Q2]

Of course none of you who think SS is a Ponzi Scheme would ever think of signing up when your time comes, right?

Of course though, like a bunch of hypocrites you'll be right in front of the line with your hands out saying "Gimme gimme gimme".

And don't try and deny it.....

So you think we should be forced to pay in though we disagree with the system and yet should not take the miniscule return that we get when the time comes. If Uncle Sam allows us to opt out of paying it I would GLADLY forgo the benefits. Even the ones I have already paid for.

 

[DaGoose]

No... its not... because those things are not accounting entries.

I have no idea what you're talking about, which means we finally have something in common because obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

The payroll tax is real money, paid by real Americans. It is not an 'accounting entry'.

You really are dense.

There is no SS Trust Fund stuffed with that Real Money Paid by Americans.

The trust fund is a bunch of accounting entries which are basically IOUs to be paid by future taxpayers (who have no say in the matter and didn't agree to this appalling arrangement).

Which is how the whole concept of Social Security is set up. And both the past and current crop of taxpayers know and overwhelmingly approve of the system.

And YOU, like everyone else will stand in that line one day and say "Gimme". You will become the leach on society taking other people's money.

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

You support allowing people to invest some or all of the SS payments into private account?

Absolutely not. That allowance would surely lead to SS insolvency much sooner.

If anything, we should drop the salary cap and do means testing. SS is the only safe haven left in a world of corporate pirates and their governmental prostitutes.

....rule of thumb: if it's a Republican goal, it only benefits the wealthy. Never fails.

 

[DaGoose]

Of course none of you who think SS is a Ponzi Scheme would ever think of signing up when your time comes, right?

Of course though, like a bunch of hypocrites you'll be right in front of the line with your hands out saying "Gimme gimme gimme".

And don't try and deny it.....

So you think we should be forced to pay in though we disagree with the system and yet should not take the miniscule return that we get when the time comes. If Uncle Sam allows us to opt out of paying it I would GLADLY forgo the benefits. Even the ones I have already paid for.

And if you made poor investment choices then we would be supporting your ass on WELFARE.

Look, you're not going to change it and you'll be holding your hand out like everyone else when the time comes. So it's best to make changes now to ensure it pays out promised benefits.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You must have grown up in a city because many, if not most small towns do not have an auto dealership and the back yard shade tree mechanics are probably not the best teachers. The same goes for newspapers, beauty shops, factories, etc.. Believe it or not my wife goes to a local vet (doggy doctor) to get her nails done which is done part time by the receptionist.

Basically what you are advocating are trade schools for children. And that wouldn't go over too well for our lack of scientists, engineers, etc. in this nation.

First of all, dipshit, who said anything about "backyard shade tree mechanics"? The mechanics who run the school's auto shop and also teach are fully certified, just as you would find at any good repair shop.

Second, what difference does it make if a town has an auto dealership? There's no town in America that doesn't have CARS or need them fixed. Which, by the way, is why most if not all high schools offer auto shop classes.

If your wife wants to get her nails done by a receptionist, that's her lookout. Personally, I prefer someone licensed by the state board of cosmetology, and I really doubt there's not a licensed manicurist somewhere near you.

Basically, yes, I do advocate trade school training for adolescents if that's what they want to do, although not all privatized public schools need to operate exactly as my son's school does. There's nothing about offering such training to those who want it that's going to reduce the number of scientists available, because the people who want it weren't going to become scientists in the first place. The vast majority of people in this country DON'T become scientists, or go into the professions, and they DO still need to learn employable skills. And EVERYONE could use a little training in holding a job and being a good employee, in my opinion, whatever they wind up doing in life.

Furthermore, you are making a massive assumption that my son's school does not still teach standard academics. I can't imagine WHY you would make that assumption, other than just a kneejerk desire to attack me, because I did mention academics. All of that is still covered, and the students are fully capable of going on to college if they wish, as many of them actually do. The trade courses are electives, and not everyone chooses to take them. Many of the students take more traditional electives, such as art, music, or woodshop, or unusual non-profit electives, such as dance, yoga, computer graphics, or special effects. This last is my son's favorite, and last night, he came home and showed me his middle finger, carefully done up in a box as a severed digit. ::sigh::

For the record, by the way, I didn't grow up in a city. I grew up in a pissant small town in New Mexico, which nevertheless did offer the electives of auto shop, wood shop, and photography. They just didn't teach them in a real-world, "this is how you work in this field" sort of way.

PUBLIC school auto and wood shop, I'll bet.

What the **** is THAT supposed to mean? Yeah, I attended public schools, because back then, there wasn't anything else unless one was rich. And yeah, they taught auto and wood shop like a public school does, aka with no eye toward preparing the students for actually WORKING as a mechanic or carpenter.

Actually I felt you attacked all small towns with the assumption that they all have people to teach them all of those trades outside of the school system. They don't. Around here if you don't go to a shade tree mechanic then you have your car towed over 30 miles away.

If a small town has a school and manages to find people to teach those classes NOW, they have the ability to find people to teach them as actual businesses. I can't imagine why you think a small town can get teachers, but not other working professionals.

And if you think computer graphics and special effects are "non-profit" electives....

They are non-profit electives at his school in the sense that the school doesn't operate profit-generating businesses in those areas, as they do with the auto shop, photography, etc.

I'm not saying that trade schools are bad. I think they're great. But I felt you were saying ALL kids should go to trade schools instead of becoming scientists, doctors, lawyers, vets, etc..

No, I think all kids should go to privatized public schools, and I think all kids should go to schools that offer serious, useful trade-school training to those who want it. I also think all kids should undergo some kind of training to prepare them to be employed, whatever the field is.

That is just plain funny about your son. He could have a career in "Special Effects".

He could, actually. Tucson, and Arizona in general, actually have pretty strong theatre and movie industries.

I suspect he just takes the class for fun and to creep me out, but it helps to make him excited about going to school, and he's making A's in all of his academic courses, so that's good enough for me.