Privatize % of SS ?

[johnrocks]

Republicans want to privatize SS, so Wall Street can steal all of our money, not just some of it.

Wait, government forcing me to partake in SS is ok but me having an option to invest that with Wall Street, saving it or however I choose; is "stealing"

 

[kaz]

Republicans want to privatize SS, so Wall Street can steal all of our money, not just some of it.

Another liberal sheep is worried "Wall Street" that they hate will steal his money. Money his beloved politicians already took. Actually they never saved it at all, they spent it. And you're worried Wall Street wants their hands on it.

That is so gay

 

[FA_Q2]

There are over a million workers that are illiterate. By illiterate, I mean they cannot read and understand simple sentence nor can they do most elementary math. In addition there are about 20 million adults that are functionally illiterate. By this I mean they can not write letters, understand written instructions or do math requiring additions, subtraction, understanding fractions, decimals, or percentages. Is the government to say to these people here is 16% of your pay, invest it wisely? To do so is to create an unfunded senior welfare systems so the better educated and more investment savvy can manage their investments. Considering the investment success of the average investor, this does not sound like a good trade off.

If we were to privatize S.S. it should be done by the Social Security Administration modifying it's current investment formula to include some non-government investments. This would increase the return and it would be low risk. It would not be a safety net which of course defeats the primary purpose of S.S.

That is why the investment avenues should be somewhat limited so that, even if someone does not fully understand what is going on they would not have too high a risk. If they so chose, they could put it right back into government bonds as well. Again, just because people do not understand the market does not preclude them from investing. What we have now is a senior welfare program, what we are putting fourth is that it should actually be a retirement program. I am interested as to why you seem to think that it would suddenly not be a safety net. It would still serve those purpose, simply be FAR better at it than now.

Under ZERO circumstances should it be a government investment deal. Not only would that bring in big questions about conflicts of interest but the entire premise here is that the government has NO idea where to put that money. You would be better off with a dart board and a blindfold than congressmen are. Do you not remember all the clips of congress stating how well housing was, how stable Fannie and Freddy were and the rest of the asinine outlook that congress has in regard to financial issues.

 

[Flopper]

There are over a million workers that are illiterate. By illiterate, I mean they cannot read and understand simple sentence nor can they do most elementary math. In addition there are about 20 million adults that are functionally illiterate. By this I mean they can not write letters, understand written instructions or do math requiring additions, subtraction, understanding fractions, decimals, or percentages. Is the government to say to these people here is 16% of your pay, invest it wisely? To do so is to create an unfunded senior welfare systems so the better educated and more investment savvy can manage their investments. Considering the investment success of the average investor, this does not sound like a good trade off.

If we were to privatize S.S. it should be done by the Social Security Administration modifying it's current investment formula to include some non-government investments. This would increase the return and it would be low risk. It would not be a safety net which of course defeats the primary purpose of S.S.

That is why the investment avenues should be somewhat limited so that, even if someone does not fully understand what is going on they would not have too high a risk. If they so chose, they could put it right back into government bonds as well. Again, just because people do not understand the market does not preclude them from investing. What we have now is a senior welfare program, what we are putting fourth is that it should actually be a retirement program. I am interested as to why you seem to think that it would suddenly not be a safety net. It would still serve those purpose, simply be FAR better at it than now.

Under ZERO circumstances should it be a government investment deal. Not only would that bring in big questions about conflicts of interest but the entire premise here is that the government has NO idea where to put that money. You would be better off with a dart board and a blindfold than congressmen are. Do you not remember all the clips of congress stating how well housing was, how stable Fannie and Freddy were and the rest of the asinine outlook that congress has in regard to financial issues.

S.S. invests in treasuries which are considered a risk free investment. Any other investment will increase risk. I don't think the government could offer a range of investments choices for a lot of reasons. I believe there could only be two choices. Continue to allow S.S. to invest the employee's retirement money in treasuries using the same formula they use now or allow the employees to invest that money anyway they choose. Once you do this the safety net disappears.

I do not agree that S.S. is senior welfare program. All benefits are paid out of the trust fund. The trust fund is funded by employee and employer contributions. Benefits are paid based on the amount of contributions made not need. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is welfare funded by tax dollars to provide assistance to the disabled and blind. It is coordinated with S.S. benefits, but payments do not come from the trust fund.

 

[Chris]

Republicans want to privatize SS, so Wall Street can steal all of our money, not just some of it.

Another liberal sheep is worried "Wall Street" that they hate will steal his money. Money his beloved politicians already took. Actually they never saved it at all, they spent it. And you're worried Wall Street wants their hands on it.

That is so gay

Wall Street already stole the money with their derivatives Ponzi scheme.

And we all had to replace the money they stole.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Republicans want to privatize SS, so Wall Street can steal all of our money, not just some of it.

Just who is Wall Street?

I buy Mutual funds and stocks from an on line broker. I pay no fees to any firm.

If you want to remain ignorant about your finances then do so, just don't ask me to foot the bill for you.

You pay for it. It's a hidden cost.

Really? Who do i pay it to.

I pay the small fee for the purchase and that's it. Mutual funds have a small fee scale but you know that up front because it's all in the prospectus.

I pay no fees to any brokerage firms.

 

[kaz]

Republicans want to privatize SS, so Wall Street can steal all of our money, not just some of it.

Another liberal sheep is worried "Wall Street" that they hate will steal his money. Money his beloved politicians already took. Actually they never saved it at all, they spent it. And you're worried Wall Street wants their hands on it.

That is so gay

Wall Street already stole the money with their derivatives Ponzi scheme.

And we all had to replace the money they stole.

Dude, focus. The social security taxes came in to the treasury and went out in spending. Nothing was ever saved. Turn on your brain and you will realize it was stolen by your beloved liberal politicians. They are the thieves. Wall Street can't "steal" money that never existed no matter how much you hate capitalism.

 

[FA_Q2]

S.S. invests in treasuries which are considered a risk free investment. Any other investment will increase risk. I don't think the government could offer a range of investments choices for a lot of reasons. I believe there could only be two choices. Continue to allow S.S. to invest the employee's retirement money in treasuries using the same formula they use now or allow the employees to invest that money anyway they choose. Once you do this the safety net disappears.

"A lot of reasons" is meaningless. Try naming some of those reasons. Your 2 options are narrow and do not represent the HUGE range of things you can do to invest for your retirement.

 

[Flopper]

Just who is Wall Street?

I buy Mutual funds and stocks from an on line broker. I pay no fees to any firm.

If you want to remain ignorant about your finances then do so, just don't ask me to foot the bill for you.

You pay for it. It's a hidden cost.

Really? Who do i pay it to.

I pay the small fee for the purchase and that's it. Mutual funds have a small fee scale but you know that up front because it's all in the prospectus.

I pay no fees to any brokerage firms.

Assuming you buy no load funds, you will have no mutual fund sales charge, but that does not mean there are no fees. There are always management fees. You never see them but there're always there. 12-B1 fees, brokerage fees, and delayed sales charges are potential fees. They are really not hidden but you have to do some research.

Brokerages that offer zero transaction fees have hidden costs, which vary with firms. Some firms will pay a lower interest on cash balances, others will not do an account sweep daily, and some have yearly maintenance fees. Still others pool transactions, which delays execution. There is never a really free transaction. One way or the other you will pay for it.

 

[Flopper]

Another liberal sheep is worried "Wall Street" that they hate will steal his money. Money his beloved politicians already took. Actually they never saved it at all, they spent it. And you're worried Wall Street wants their hands on it.

That is so gay

Wall Street already stole the money with their derivatives Ponzi scheme.

And we all had to replace the money they stole.

Dude, focus. The social security taxes came in to the treasury and went out in spending. Nothing was ever saved. Turn on your brain and you will realize it was stolen by your beloved liberal politicians. They are the thieves. Wall Street can't "steal" money that never existed no matter how much you hate capitalism.

Nope. FICA contributions from employees and employers go into the trust fund, which has a balance of about 2.3 trillion. Benefits are paid out of the trust fund. By law the fund balance has to be invest in government obligations, mostly treasury bills and notes with various maturities. The government does not take money out of the trust fund and spend it. S.S. invests the money in treasuries. Funds raised from selling treasuries are used to run the government. When the treasuries come due, the government issues more treasuries, (debt) to pay the interest and principal.

The Social Security Administration is doing what most major corporations in world are doing. They invest their cash reserves in treasuries. If greedy politicians have stolen the trust fund investments in US treasuries then they have stolen the cash reserves of major corporations. That would mean treasuries are worthless along with the US dollar.

 

[Flopper]

S.S. invests in treasuries which are considered a risk free investment. Any other investment will increase risk. I don't think the government could offer a range of investments choices for a lot of reasons. I believe there could only be two choices. Continue to allow S.S. to invest the employee's retirement money in treasuries using the same formula they use now or allow the employees to invest that money anyway they choose. Once you do this the safety net disappears.

"A lot of reasons" is meaningless. Try naming some of those reasons. Your 2 options are narrow and do not represent the HUGE range of things you can do to invest for your retirement.

Let’s say the federal government offers a range of three investment options in addition to S.S. Say they offer a stock index fund, a corporate bond index fund, and a money market fund. By offering these investment options, the government would be influencing those markets. By allowing the government to offer a limited number of investment choices, the government would be making a choice as to which assets classes’ retirement money should be invested. Then there’s the problem of who manages the investments and how they will be marketed. S.S. does not have any of these problems because it is not considered an investment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You pay for it. It's a hidden cost.

Really? Who do i pay it to.

I pay the small fee for the purchase and that's it. Mutual funds have a small fee scale but you know that up front because it's all in the prospectus.

I pay no fees to any brokerage firms.

Assuming you buy no load funds, you will have no mutual fund sales charge, but that does not mean there are no fees. There are always management fees. You never see them but there're always there. 12-B1 fees, brokerage fees, and delayed sales charges are potential fees. They are really not hidden but you have to do some research.

They are not hidden at all which is what I said in my previous post. The only research one need do is read the prospectus that by law must be given to you.

Brokerages that offer zero transaction fees have hidden costs, which vary with firms. Some firms will pay a lower interest on cash balances, others will not do an account sweep daily, and some have yearly maintenance fees. Still others pool transactions, which delays execution. There is never a really free transaction. One way or the other you will pay for it.

Of course you will. But how does that equal "Wall Street stealing our money"?

If you engage anyone to perform a service for you, you will pay them. If you don't bother to find out exactly how much that payment will be that's your problem.

 

[Flopper]

Really? Who do i pay it to.

I pay the small fee for the purchase and that's it. Mutual funds have a small fee scale but you know that up front because it's all in the prospectus.

I pay no fees to any brokerage firms.

Assuming you buy no load funds, you will have no mutual fund sales charge, but that does not mean there are no fees. There are always management fees. You never see them but there're always there. 12-B1 fees, brokerage fees, and delayed sales charges are potential fees. They are really not hidden but you have to do some research.

They are not hidden at all which is what I said in my previous post. The only research one need do is read the prospectus that by law must be given to you.

Brokerages that offer zero transaction fees have hidden costs, which vary with firms. Some firms will pay a lower interest on cash balances, others will not do an account sweep daily, and some have yearly maintenance fees. Still others pool transactions, which delays execution. There is never a really free transaction. One way or the other you will pay for it.

Of course you will. But how does that equal "Wall Street stealing our money"?

If you engage anyone to perform a service for you, you will pay them. If you don't bother to find out exactly how much that payment will be that's your problem.

Never said Wall Street was stealing our money. Most people that lose money in the markets do so because they lack the knowledge and the temperament needed for success. If S.S. were privatized and everyone could invest as they pleased, it would work well for those that are successfully managing their retirement nest egg, but for the rest it would be disaster.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Assuming you buy no load funds, you will have no mutual fund sales charge, but that does not mean there are no fees. There are always management fees. You never see them but there're always there. 12-B1 fees, brokerage fees, and delayed sales charges are potential fees. They are really not hidden but you have to do some research.

They are not hidden at all which is what I said in my previous post. The only research one need do is read the prospectus that by law must be given to you.

Brokerages that offer zero transaction fees have hidden costs, which vary with firms. Some firms will pay a lower interest on cash balances, others will not do an account sweep daily, and some have yearly maintenance fees. Still others pool transactions, which delays execution. There is never a really free transaction. One way or the other you will pay for it.

Of course you will. But how does that equal "Wall Street stealing our money"?

If you engage anyone to perform a service for you, you will pay them. If you don't bother to find out exactly how much that payment will be that's your problem.

Never said Wall Street was stealing our money. Most people that lose money in the markets do so because they lack the knowledge and the temperament needed for success. If S.S. were privatized and everyone could invest as they pleased, it would work well for those that are successfully managing their retirement nest egg, but for the rest it would be disaster.

One can manage a portfolio based on an asset allocation strategy in about 15 minutes every few months.

Do you really think you have to watch the stock market like a hawk and worry about every 5 point dip in the DOW?

Again anyone with half a brain who will take few hours to learn about simple investing strategies can do just fine.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They are not hidden at all which is what I said in my previous post. The only research one need do is read the prospectus that by law must be given to you.



Of course you will. But how does that equal "Wall Street stealing our money"?

If you engage anyone to perform a service for you, you will pay them. If you don't bother to find out exactly how much that payment will be that's your problem.

Never said Wall Street was stealing our money. Most people that lose money in the markets do so because they lack the knowledge and the temperament needed for success. If S.S. were privatized and everyone could invest as they pleased, it would work well for those that are successfully managing their retirement nest egg, but for the rest it would be disaster.

One can manage a portfolio based on an asset allocation strategy in about 15 minutes every few months.

Do you really think you have to watch the stock market like a hawk and worry about every 5 point dip in the DOW?

Again anyone with half a brain who will take few hours to learn about simple investing strategies can do just fine.

But . . . but . . . that's what they do in all the movies! What are you saying, that Hollywood isn't real life?!

 

[Flopper]

There are 20 million adults in this country that are functionally illiterate which means they can not read well enough to follow simple instructions, can not write a letter, and can not add and subtract. You think these people are going to learn about asset allocation and going to do a comparative analysis between various investment? You're dreaming.

 

[asterism]

There are 20 million adults in this country that are functionally illiterate which means they can not read well enough to follow simple instructions, can not write a letter, and can not add and subtract. You think these people are going to learn about asset allocation and going to do a comparative analysis between various investment? You're dreaming.

Perhaps it's time to stop trying to coddle them. It's not like their lives are any better with all the subsidies. Basic needs for those who need them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are 20 million adults in this country that are functionally illiterate which means they can not read well enough to follow simple instructions, can not write a letter, and can not add and subtract. You think these people are going to learn about asset allocation and going to do a comparative analysis between various investment? You're dreaming.

You don't seem to have a problem with expecting them to figure out which Medicare plan to choose, so why are you so sure they couldn't decide between retirement investment plans, a la the TSP used by the federal employees? It's not like anyone's expecting them to all become day traders.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There are 20 million adults in this country that are functionally illiterate which means they can not read well enough to follow simple instructions, can not write a letter, and can not add and subtract. You think these people are going to learn about asset allocation and going to do a comparative analysis between various investment? You're dreaming.

Fidelity Investments

All one need is to know the year they will retire. The free market does seem to come up with solutions for almost every scenario.

 

[kaz]

Dude, focus. The social security taxes came in to the treasury and went out in spending. Nothing was ever saved. Turn on your brain and you will realize it was stolen by your beloved liberal politicians. They are the thieves. Wall Street can't "steal" money that never existed no matter how much you hate capitalism.

Nope. FICA contributions from employees and employers go into the trust fund, which has a balance of about 2.3 trillion. Benefits are paid out of the trust fund. By law the fund balance has to be invest in government obligations, mostly treasury bills and notes with various maturities. The government does not take money out of the trust fund and spend it. S.S. invests the money in treasuries. Funds raised from selling treasuries are used to run the government. When the treasuries come due, the government issues more treasuries, (debt) to pay the interest and principal.

The Social Security Administration is doing what most major corporations in world are doing. They invest their cash reserves in treasuries. If greedy politicians have stolen the trust fund investments in US treasuries then they have stolen the cash reserves of major corporations. That would mean treasuries are worthless along with the US dollar.

Only government can spend 2.3 Trillion dollars, call it a "trust fund" and then give the bonds to be paid to the same children we claim we are giving the trust fund to and then instruct them to send us monthly checks which are to be funded by the trust fund we gave them that they have to pay for. Hmmm.

This is why liberalism is a religion and not a political ideology. You have to accept liberalism on "faith." That's why liberals hate Christians so much, it's a competing religion. As for me, if I had to pick what to put my faith in I'd put it in that there is a loving God over that socialism is a magic elixir that solves every problem. Also at least empirical data doesn't disprove the Christian God as empirical data disproves all liberal solutions. So your faith is actually stronger, I suppose. You have to ignore everything you see to believe what you do while Christians just have to believe what they can't empirically prove.