Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry

[clevergirl]

For the SS is not a Ponzi scheme crowd.

One, a Ponzi scheme collects money from new investors and uses it to pay previous investors—minus a fee. But Social Security collects money from new investors, uses some of it to pay previous investors, and spends the surplus on programs for politically favored groups—minus the cost of supporting a massive bureaucracy. Over the years, trillions of dollars have been spent on these groups and bureaucrats. Two, participation in Ponzi schemes is voluntary. Not so with Social Security. The government automatically withholds payroll taxes and “invests” them for you.
Three: When a Ponzi scheme can’t con new investors in sufficient numbers to pay the previous investors, it collapses. But when Social Security runs low on investors—also called poor working stiffs—it raises taxes.

Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

So perfectly sublime in its communication~

 

[Lumpy 1]

Is there a guarantee that a 20,30, 40...yr. old paying into social security now will receive SS when they retire at 65-67...the odds are slim wouldn't you say...

That's the point Perry was making in the debate...

From the OP link, dang interesting

^^^^^^^^^..

Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase.

Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

if not one reform for SS is made to secure it better, those above would receive 75% of what they were promised when they retire....

Without Democrat support there will be no reforms.. it's too much of a bludgeon the Republicans issue for them to make any constructive changes... explain this 75% guarantee to me or a link, if you don't mind...

 

[Charles_Main]

Of course, everyone is forced to have car insurance. Oops.

First off, The States Mandate Car Insurance, not the Fed.

Second, You do not have to own, and operate a car, and if you choose not to. You do not need Car Insurance.

The Health Care Mandate Forces everyone to Buy Health Insurance if they are Breathing. Now you can choose not to breath if you want, but it's not much of a choice.

You Libs constantly prove how little you understand how our Federated Republic works.

You seem to not grasp that Powers not SPECIFICALLY given to the Fed fall to the states. Therefore Mandated Car Insurance by states is not even close to a relative Comparison to the Fed mandating Health Insurance.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Of course, everyone is forced to have car insurance. Oops.

First off, The States Mandate Car Insurance, not the Fed.

Second, You do not have to own, and operate a car, and if you choose not to. You do not need Car Insurance.

The Health Care Mandate Forces everyone to Buy Health Insurance if they are Breathing. Now you can choose not to breath if you want, but it's not much of a choice.

You Libs constantly prove how little you understand how our Federated Republic works.

You seem to not grasp that Powers not SPECIFICALLY given to the Fed fall to the states. Therefore Mandated Car Insurance by states is not even close to a relative Comparison to the Fed mandating Health Insurance.

It's been explained to these slapdick liberals many times, CM.......They will never grasp it, no matter how obvious it truly is.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

For the SS is not a Ponzi scheme crowd.

One, a Ponzi scheme collects money from new investors and uses it to pay previous investors—minus a fee. But Social Security collects money from new investors, uses some of it to pay previous investors, and spends the surplus on programs for politically favored groups—minus the cost of supporting a massive bureaucracy. Over the years, trillions of dollars have been spent on these groups and bureaucrats. Two, participation in Ponzi schemes is voluntary. Not so with Social Security. The government automatically withholds payroll taxes and “invests” them for you.
Three: When a Ponzi scheme can’t con new investors in sufficient numbers to pay the previous investors, it collapses. But when Social Security runs low on investors—also called poor working stiffs—it raises taxes.

Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

If Social Security is a Ponzi scheme then so is any insurance product.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It is to Republicans. Even many on Social Security. Only they don't know it's Social Security. They think it's from "fans".

Social Security is a bigger and better ponzi scheme than Bernie Maddof ever thought of.

For all your working life--you and your employer pay 12..4% of your gross wages into this fund. If you're lucky enough to make it to 67 years old they will give you back diddly sqaut on your investment--and should you meet your demise early and are single they simply confiscate your contribution. The Federal Government uses this fund to pay for wars--foreign aid--disaster relief--and about anything and everything other than what it was intended for--the well being of the elderly in this country.

That's why Rick Perry is right--he won't win election on his stance--because so many are dependent on social security today.

Bernie Madoff didn't have the tax revenues of the largest economy on Earth to back his investors funds.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

most retirement funds run in the private sector are pretty much the same....

boomers not only paid for their parents SS, but they paid for a good portion of their own future SS retirement, by contributing the SS Surplus since Reagan DOUBLED (100% increase in our taxes for SS back in 1983).

The SS surplus money loaned, has to be paid back with income tax moneys.

Ultimately, the workers have to produce the goods and services those too old to work need close to the time they are needed - it doesn't really matter how one's retirement is planned and executed - those producing have to make enough goods and services for themselves and for those not producing - period.

 

[Charles_Main]

Is there a guarantee that a 20,30, 40...yr. old paying into social security now will receive SS when they retire at 65-67...the odds are slim wouldn't you say...

That's the point Perry was making in the debate...

From the OP link, dang interesting

^^^^^^^^^..

Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase.

Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

if not one reform for SS is made to secure it better, those above would receive 75% of what they were promised when they retire....

SS is already to little to live on, do you think it will be better years from now, Trying to live on 75% of it? Do you really believe there is not a better, safe way, for workers to get a better return on their Retirement funds?

My God when my Father died his accountant told me had my father been able to invest the money he had paid into SS, into even the most Modest investment vehicle, he would have easily seen 3 to 4 times the Return.

Between the very poor Return, and the Government raiding the Fund to cover the General Budget. SS is not what I would call a great Deal.

Add to that that over half the people now Collecting are actually collection SSDI (Disability) and many of them never paid in at all, or did not pay anywhere near what they will collect and you have a real mess.

Now Before you asshole Lefties claim I want to do away with SS, and SSD. Let me just say I have never said anything of the sort. I want to find a way to make sure we have Both a Retirement plan for those who need it, and Disability for those who need it. For the long run. I want to make sure that it is not being ripped off, and that we are getting a fair return on the investment.

I recently had a Lefty in here claim I am a hypocrite for wanting to "get rid of MC, and SS" when my Mother In Law is on both. So I just wanted to set the Record Straight. I am for fixing Both, and HAVE NEVER said I was for getting rid of them. Wanting to make sure they are sound, and sustainable, and not getting ripped off, does not equate to wanting to get rid of them all together. No matter how many times asshole partisan Lefties try and say it does.

 

[Lakhota]

If Social Security is a Ponzi scheme then so is any insurance product.

Many overlook the fact that Social Security is insurance.

 

[Lakhota]

Pension Promises Broken

Fact Sheet: Your Employer's Bankruptcy: How Will It Affect Your Employee Benefits?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

SS is already to little to live on,

The average benefit is about $1200 a month. Plus your Medicare is paid for. I used to live on $1200 a month. Its called being poor. But its possible. SS isn't intended to make everyone rich in retirement, its intended to be a safety net, providing a level of income sufficient to live on in case all your other retirement plans fail.

do you think it will be better years from now, Trying to live on 75% of it? Do you really believe there is not a better, safe way, for workers to get a better return on their Retirement funds?

No, there isn't. Nothing is safer than an investment in the full faith and credit of the United States. Ask any investment advisor. Why the **** do you think treasury prices go up every time the stock market drops?

My God when my Father died his accountant told me had my father been able to invest the money he had paid into SS, into even the most Modest investment vehicle, he would have easily seen 3 to 4 times the Return.

Unfortunately you can't invest in hindsight returns.

If you could do that - everyone would have made it through the crash of 1929 just fine. But they didn't. It took until 1945 for $1 invested in stocks in 1929 to rise back to the value of $1 invested in treasuries in 1929.

You fail to realize that the market is not some separate entity from those engaged in it - its one and the same. If the stream of cash going into Social Security is directed into the stock market instead - stock prices will rise substantially. People will have to pay higher prices for the stock - and hence, their ultimate returns will be lower. And when the money going into the stock market for retirement drops below the money coming out of it for retirees - that will depress prices.


A simple example is this - the market goes up 20% one year, drops 30% the next, goes up 20% the next year. 1.2 * 0.7 * 1.2 = 1.008 - the average investor should come out even, right? Wrong. THE AVERAGE INVESTOR USUALLY TIMES THE MARKET WRONG - and that's a rule that will ALWAYS be true.

Add to that that over half the people now Collecting are actually collection SSDI (Disability) and many of them never paid in at all, or did not pay anywhere near what they will collect and you have a real mess.

Actually Social Security Disability only goes to those who have paid in. And of course those who receive it will generally get more back than they paid in - I guess the concept of INSURANCE escapes you.

 

[Lakhota]

The average benefit is about $1200 a month. Plus your Medicare is paid for. I used to live on $1200 a month. Its called being poor. But its possible. SS isn't intended to make everyone rich in retirement, its intended to be a safety net, providing a level of income sufficient to live on in case all your other retirement plans fail.

True, but Medicare isn't free. I pay a monthly premium, which is deducted from my monthly SS amount, and I also pay out-of-pocket for what Medicare doesn't pay.

 

[bripat9643]

True. It's worse than a Ponzi scheme.

For the SS is not a Ponzi scheme crowd.

One, a Ponzi scheme collects money from new investors and uses it to pay previous investors—minus a fee. But Social Security collects money from new investors, uses some of it to pay previous investors, and spends the surplus on programs for politically favored groups—minus the cost of supporting a massive bureaucracy. Over the years, trillions of dollars have been spent on these groups and bureaucrats. Two, participation in Ponzi schemes is voluntary. Not so with Social Security. The government automatically withholds payroll taxes and “invests” them for you.
Three: When a Ponzi scheme can’t con new investors in sufficient numbers to pay the previous investors, it collapses. But when Social Security runs low on investors—also called poor working stiffs—it raises taxes.

Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

 

[bripat9643]

That's one mighty sad life you are living.

Do you ever post anything besides personal attacks?

 

[bripat9643]

Ultimately, the workers have to produce the goods and services those too old to work need close to the time they are needed - it doesn't really matter how one's retirement is planned and executed - those producing have to make enough goods and services for themselves and for those not producing - period.

When money is invested it means more goods and services will be available in the future than would be the case otherwise. You seem to believe production is a given. It's not. Every dollar the government takes out of your check in FICA taxes is robbed from future production.

 

[bripat9643]

If Social Security is a Ponzi scheme then so is any insurance product.

Many overlook the fact that Social Security is insurance.

It most definitely is not insurance. It's welfare.

 

[editec]

If SSI is a Ponzi scheme, so too are all those T-Bills people own.

 

[Bfgrn]

There shouldn't be any more shining example of poor government is at at delivering services or how completely blind and obtuse liberals can be to it's abject failure, than SS.

What is SS goal? A safety net for the elderly and disabled.

Is the fund being used for that? NO

Is it solvent? NO

Is it the best a person can do to ensure income after retirement. HELL NO.

Is it a shining example of how blind liberals can be in their attempt to be 'compassionate' via government? YES

You love to spew propaganda that has NO basis in facts.

Social Security is a model of efficiency. The annual costs of running Social Security amount to less than 1 percent of its benefit payments.

The life insurance industry has costs that average 12 to 14 percent of benefits, an indication of what would lie in store for a privatized Social Security system.

The only 'ponzi scheme' being proposed is privatization of Social Security.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

When Perry was asked about why Texas was last in health care, he said if Obamacare didn't force people to have health care, everyone in Texas would. So, less is "more"?

Of course, everyone is forced to have car insurance. Oops.

Actually the truth is you have to buy car insurance only IF you "choose" to buy a car. Can you show me a case where an individual, who chooses mass transit as their only means of transportation (therby never owning a car) is still forced to have car insurance? Oops.

Now you can't make that claim about Obamacare: the government FORCES you to buy it or you have to pay a fine - there isn't a choice (which is why it has been ruled as being unconstitutional and is currently on appeal by the Obama Administration). Nice effort though.

 

[mudwhistle]

When Perry was asked about why Texas was last in health care, he said if Obamacare didn't force people to have health care, everyone in Texas would. So, less is "more"?

Of course, everyone is forced to have car insurance. Oops.

There is a difference between health ins. and auto ins. when it comes to liability.

That's why they have collision and full-coverage options.

Many auto accidents involve more than one vehicle which means one can be liable for damages against another.

Health ins. is not coverage in case you kill or cause financial harm to another, so comparing the two is.....well......dumb.