Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry

[saveliberty]

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.

He also brought up the undeniable fact that Texas is a state in a unique situation. Texas shares the largest portion of our southern boarder. The unregulated flow of illegal immigrants into Texas, the one thing this administration refuses to regulate, does play a major factor into the graduation rates and health care rates.

I'm sure you actually watched the debate though, right.

The Meixcan "boarder" should have to pay rent!

Nope, and forget paying for medical too.

 

[Google]

SS is an investment, a bank account if you will. Wall Street would love to own the allocation
of our personal investment intended for (our) future, not Wall Street's future.

" Ponsi sceme," I think not. Give it to Wall Street and it becomes that...........guaranteed!!

Try Forced investment meaning a TAX taken at the point of a gun. It's a form of tyranny.

You want a government where all taxation is voluntary? How would that work, exactly?

Let me ask you as a progressive would you be against an optional opt as for those that wish not to participate in SS?

 

[The T]

SS is an investment, a bank account if you will. Wall Street would love to own the allocation
of our personal investment intended for (our) future, not Wall Street's future.

" Ponsi sceme," I think not. Give it to Wall Street and it becomes that...........guaranteed!!

Try Forced investment meaning a TAX taken at the point of a gun. It's a form of tyranny.

You want a government where all taxation is voluntary? How would that work, exactly?

When it comes to retirement decisions? I trust myself more than I do a bunch of politicians that have time and again raided it for thier little pork projects or to paysomething else.

Frankly? It's disrespectful and insulting. I can plan for my retirement better than the government can.

Get it?

 

[The T]

And by the way? Taxation should come from taxing commerce...NOT incomes of citizens. That's how the Founders had it set up, and it needs to go back to that way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Try Forced investment meaning a TAX taken at the point of a gun. It's a form of tyranny.

You want a government where all taxation is voluntary? How would that work, exactly?

Let me ask you as a progressive would you be against an optional opt as for those that wish not to participate in SS?

Only if I get to decide how much tax I pay that goes to the military.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And by the way? Taxation should come from taxing commerce...NOT incomes of citizens. That's how the Founders had it set up, and it needs to go back to that way.

Practically everyone was a farmer of some sort back then. I don't think the comparison is meaningful.

 

[uscitizen]

SS is an investment, a bank account if you will. Wall Street would love to own the allocation
of our personal investment intended for (our) future, not Wall Street's future.

" Ponsi sceme," I think not. Give it to Wall Street and it becomes that...........guaranteed!!

Try Forced investment meaning a TAX taken at the point of a gun. It's a form of tyranny.

You want a government where all taxation is voluntary? How would that work, exactly?

they would opt out till they were about 50 and then join.

 

[flacaltenn]

If Congress had made it clear that Soc Sec Trust Fund could ONLY HOLD public issue Treasury Bonds -- then TODAY -- we would be selling those valuable assets on the open market. It would be a bonanza because of the interest rates on those notes coming in at 6 or even 8%..

LOL!!!! You'd be selling them on the open market but to people who then consequently would NOT buy other issues - thus pushing the burden onto the general budget - JUST THE SAME!

Doesn't really matter if Bob buys a treasury from the Trust fund instead of one from the Treasury or if Bob buys one from the Treasury and the Treasury exchanges Bob's money with the trust fund for an IOU - its the same ******* thing!

In reality -- you're probably right that it's SIMILIAR if the actual bonds were issued back when the debt was incurred and stuffed into the Trust Fund or TODAY when we actually need the money. But your logic sucks and there are some important diffs.

The logic error is buying the bonds then or now puts the SAME pressure on the bond market.

Consider what the advantage would be of having ACTUAL T-BILLS stashed in a "lock box". Today they would commend a very high premium because of the laddered interest rates in the fund. You would have OUTSIDE investors picking them up and actually contributing REAL bucks to those "interest payments" that the SSA brags about.

As opposed to the phoney "interest payments" that the taxpayers are paying themselves with the current system.. I only brought up the actual purchase of T-Bills as a BETTER solution, not a fix for extremely inefficient "insurance" program.

In either case, what has happened is that taxpayers have paid TWICE for the same SS benefit. They paid the 1st time when money was taken from their payroll taxes that are suppose to go ONLY to premiums. Then today when the fund goes insolvent -- they get to pay again to issue the bonds that cover the shortfall.

Yes the 1st payments when the money was stolen went to wonderful things like the Wars, shrimp on treadmill, fighter jets to Egypt, and fancy tour busses for Obama to drive. But what the leftists AREN"T bitching about is what it did to the poorest working class. By STEALING the money into the General Fund, for 25 or 30 years, the LEFTIES have purposely IGNORED the effect of KILLING the progressive income tax scale. Because they added at least 3 or 4% of EFFECTIVE income tax to the poorest of workers. In order to get them to pay essentially into the General Fund for 30 years.

Then they lie to you that the "trust fund" wasn't just sitting there empty with a bunch of IOUs in it for 30 years because it was "earning interest". Where does that interest come from?

It comes from the FREAKING TAXPAYERS you idiots. Are you PROUD of the fact that it costs MORE THAN $2 in interest and financing to pay that original $1 to a reciepient? (( I'm figuring in both the SSA DECLARED interest to the fund + the real financing cost of issuing the debt bond. ))

Kinda like::

1 stolen dollar (earning fictional average of 4% according to SSA) over 20 years ALREADY nearly doubles the amount of principal. Somewhere more than $1.90.. Then because we have cheap interest right now, we finance that $1.80 at 2.0% (mix of treasury products) over 20 years by selling it to China. That brings the stolen dollar to WAAAY over $2 in cost.

And who pays all the INTEREST that comes from the Trust Fund and the refinancing charges -- you do...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And by the way? Taxation should come from taxing commerce...NOT incomes of citizens. That's how the Founders had it set up, and it needs to go back to that way.

What evidence do you have this was the Framers’ intent – cite the case law in support.

 

[clevergirl]

And by the way? Taxation should come from taxing commerce...NOT incomes of citizens. That's how the Founders had it set up, and it needs to go back to that way.

Check out this solution to income taxes.

 

[bripat9643]

And by the way? Taxation should come from taxing commerce...NOT incomes of citizens. That's how the Founders had it set up, and it needs to go back to that way.

Practically everyone was a farmer of some sort back then. I don't think the comparison is meaningful.

Of course you don't. You might as well point out that everyone wore knickers in those days, so anything they did in government can't work now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And by the way? Taxation should come from taxing commerce...NOT incomes of citizens. That's how the Founders had it set up, and it needs to go back to that way.

What evidence do you have this was the Framers’ intent – cite the case law in support.

Better yet, what evidence does anyone have that we are supposed to be bound like servants TO the framer's 'intents'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Try Forced investment meaning a TAX taken at the point of a gun. It's a form of tyranny.

You want a government where all taxation is voluntary? How would that work, exactly?

they would opt out till they were about 50 and then join.

Mr. T wants all taxes to be voluntary except the taxes that go to pay for the things he likes.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is the problem with you idiots. You think past returns equal future performance - even though they don't. The fact that the stock market gained X amount in years past says nothing about what it will do in the future. Not only that - but if the market gained X in years past, it would NOT have gained X in years past if FICA funds had been diverted to it, because those funds would have altered the market itself!

The expected return of any stock over a 30 year period from NOW is EXACTLY THE SAME as the return on a 30 year treasury obligation issued today.

Interesting how you have a source that KNOWS what future returns are going to be. I call bullshit just like all the other crap you have laid out in this thread from the beginning.

Don't even need to argue about stock market returns. Even the DOW share value doesn't tell the whole story. There are stocks which are paying 2 or 3% in DIVIDENDS even in a prolonged recession. Not fancy but let's do a quick calculation..

Assume you start at age 18 with a $24K/yr job. Allow 8% of FICA into a private account reserve the rest for MedCare and a stipend to support indigient seniors. That's $160/month going into savings. Assume only a FLAT 2% return. Assume salary matches inflation at a flat 2%.

Guess what you have 45 years later??

$209, 575.23

At an average monthly draw of $1400 and NEGLECTING continuing interest payments. (in other words at retirement you stuck it in a mattress) that's over 12 years of benefits.

In reality with continuing interest as you draw you could probably eek out close to $1600 a month if you didn't want to leave anything to your kids or the Nature Conservancy. Or live to 90 and still equal Soc Sec benefits.

You telling me that those assumptions ARE RISKY? Riskier than the probability of a govt default on some dam thing?

http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/finance/calculators/compoundinterestcalculator.php#results

Run Any dam dismal scenario you want and get back to me..

 

[clevergirl]

This is the problem with you idiots. You think past returns equal future performance - even though they don't. The fact that the stock market gained X amount in years past says nothing about what it will do in the future. Not only that - but if the market gained X in years past, it would NOT have gained X in years past if FICA funds had been diverted to it, because those funds would have altered the market itself!

The expected return of any stock over a 30 year period from NOW is EXACTLY THE SAME as the return on a 30 year treasury obligation issued today.

Interesting how you have a source that KNOWS what future returns are going to be. I call bullshit just like all the other crap you have laid out in this thread from the beginning.

Don't even need to argue about stock market returns. Even the DOW share value doesn't tell the whole story. There are stocks which are paying 2 or 3% in DIVIDENDS even in a prolonged recession. Not fancy but let's do a quick calculation..

Assume you start at age 18 with a $24K/yr job. Allow 8% of FICA into a private account reserve the rest for MedCare and a stipend to support indigient seniors. That's $160/month going into savings. Assume only a FLAT 2% return. Assume salary matches inflation at a flat 2%.

Guess what you have 45 years later??

$209, 575.23

At an average monthly draw of $1400 and NEGLECTING continuing interest payments. (in other words at retirement you stuck it in a mattress) that's over 12 years of benefits.

In reality with continuing interest as you draw you could probably eek out close to $1600 a month if you didn't want to leave anything to your kids or the Nature Conservancy.

You telling me that those assumptions ARE RISKY? Riskier than the probability of a govt default on some dam thing?

http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/finance/calculators/compoundinterestcalculator.php#results

Run Any dam dismal scenario you want and get back to me..

Not only that, but in reality the interest paid will be closer to 6% without any real risk.

 

[candycorn]

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

Perry agrees with you (on Saturday), he didn't two days ago.

Another flip-flop

Rick Perry Backs Off Social Security 'Ponzi Scheme' Comments

 

[saveliberty]

The similarities are awfully close to a ponzi scheme. Really unless the money is replaced in the fund and given lock box status, it might as well be one.

 

[clevergirl]

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”


- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ponzi schemes don't hold and invest trillions of dollars for the sake of the participants.

'Ponzi scheme' is the 'Death panels' of social security.

Bernie Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme, and paid off hundreds of investors.

NYcaribiner is the Newt Gingrich of USMB.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And by the way? Taxation should come from taxing commerce...NOT incomes of citizens. That's how the Founders had it set up, and it needs to go back to that way.

What evidence do you have this was the Framers’ intent – cite the case law in support.

Did you ever read the Constitution? Are you aware that it contains three clauses about taxation?

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Are you aware that they actually had to amend the Constitution to create the income tax?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Are you aware that you are an idiot? Do I need to provide case law before you will recognize your stupidity?