There is NO RISK in privatizing SS and investing in stock market!!!

[Dad2three]

More to the point, a standard 60% equity / 40% bond portfolio in this country has outperformed a 100% government bond portfolio over every 50 period for at least 150 years.

How about BETWEEN those 50 year periods? Say the great depression or 1960's to 80's

 

[Andylusion]

Dude...time to give up. Campy is covering his ears and hollering, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 5-year-old.

Exactly. I put Dad2Morons on my ignore list ages ago, for just this reason. He has no intention of debating the facts, or considering your evidence. He has an ideological truth. It is divine in nature, and beyond consideration. He will simply keep repeating it, no matter what you say, what evidence you bring, or what logic you give.

Nothing you ever say will penetrate his divinely inspired dogma.

fyi, one thing about the new forum software... now when I ignore someone, I can't even see their quoted text that someone else quotes. I have to admit, that's a big plus for the new forum software.

 

[Toro]

More to the point, a standard 60% equity / 40% bond portfolio in this country has outperformed a 100% government bond portfolio over every 50 period for at least 150 years.

How about BETWEEN those 50 year periods? Say the great depression or 1960's to 80's

Over some shorter periods of time, government bonds have done better. But over longer periods of time, stocks do better.

From 1929 to 1939, government bonds performed better than stocks. But from 1929 through 1979, stocks did better. That's why SS should be structured as a long-term diversified portfolio, like the Canada Pension Plan.

If one had started investing in US stocks at the very top of the market in 1929, right before the biggest market crash of all time, and stopped investing at the end of 1979, near the end of one of the worst bear markets and before one of the greatest bull markets, one would have earned a compounded annual return of 8.0%, which beat the return of government bonds. If one invested $10,000 on December 31 1929, one would have had $469,000 on December 31, 1979.

 

[Camp]

Dude...time to give up. Campy is covering his ears and hollering, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 5-year-old.

No, that is what some of you guys who promote privatization do. It comes from frustration that you get when you realize that while there is no argument that if the funds invested in SS were instead invested in traditional investments the traditionally invested funds would do much better, but the add on of including the insurance, or if you prefer, survivor benefits and disability benefits that would have to be paid for in a privatization plan kill the privatization concept. The cost amounts to somewhere in the neighbor of a $150 per month in the early year and increases with age. It quickly reaches $200 per month and the future premium increases are somewhat unpredictable and controlled by the providers, insurance companies. And these estimates are for plans that very well may not even come close to the benefits currently provided by SS.
So how do the comparative charts and numbers look when you handicap the private investment side by deducting the funds available for investment by a couple of hundred dollars per month. You do not get a return on those funds unless you die or become disabled. They completely vanish at the end of a specific date. If you have not died or become disabled the funds are simply gone.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Dude...time to give up. Campy is covering his ears and hollering, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 5-year-old.

No, that is what some of you guys who promote privatization do. It comes from frustration that you get when you realize that while there is no argument that if the funds invested in SS were instead invested in traditional investments the traditionally invested funds would do much better, but the add on of including the insurance, or if you prefer, survivor benefits and disability benefits that would have to be paid for in a privatization plan kill the privatization concept. The cost amounts to somewhere in the neighbor of a $150 per month in the early year and increases with age. It quickly reaches $200 per month and the future premium increases are somewhat unpredictable and controlled by the providers, insurance companies. And these estimates are for plans that very well may not even come close to the benefits currently provided by SS.
So how do the comparative charts and numbers look when you handicap the private investment side by deducting the funds available for investment by a couple of hundred dollars per month. You do not get a return on those funds unless you die or become disabled. They completely vanish at the end of a specific date. If you have not died or become disabled the funds are simply gone.

Do you care to back that up with some actual examples of premiums?

Because if at age 22 one got life and disability insurance the premiums would not rise over time.

Face it private insurance is much much better than government insurance and even if one deducted the premiums a privately owned account would vastly outperform SS

 

[Camp]

Dude...time to give up. Campy is covering his ears and hollering, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 5-year-old.

No, that is what some of you guys who promote privatization do. It comes from frustration that you get when you realize that while there is no argument that if the funds invested in SS were instead invested in traditional investments the traditionally invested funds would do much better, but the add on of including the insurance, or if you prefer, survivor benefits and disability benefits that would have to be paid for in a privatization plan kill the privatization concept. The cost amounts to somewhere in the neighbor of a $150 per month in the early year and increases with age. It quickly reaches $200 per month and the future premium increases are somewhat unpredictable and controlled by the providers, insurance companies. And these estimates are for plans that very well may not even come close to the benefits currently provided by SS.
So how do the comparative charts and numbers look when you handicap the private investment side by deducting the funds available for investment by a couple of hundred dollars per month. You do not get a return on those funds unless you die or become disabled. They completely vanish at the end of a specific date. If you have not died or become disabled the funds are simply gone.

Do you care to back that up with some actual examples of premiums?

Because if at age 22 one got life and disability insurance the premiums would not rise over time.

Face it private insurance is much much better than government insurance and even if one deducted the premiums a privately owned account would vastly outperform SS

All the companies have online instant calculators. I used a 32 year old earning $40,000 per yer in several different states. At an estimate 15% of income invested each month the investment figure is $500 per month. That means the funds available for investment will be 20% to 25% less with the privatized plan when the insurance plans are deducted. You say face it, a privately owned investment portfolio given a 20 to 25 percent disadvantage can outperform SS. I am not convinced you can do that. Vastly outperform? I hear the claim but I don't see how those claims really make sense.

 

[healthmyths]

More to the point, a standard 60% equity / 40% bond portfolio in this country has outperformed a 100% government bond portfolio over every 50 period for at least 150 years.

How about BETWEEN those 50 year periods? Say the great depression or 1960's to 80's

Again...FACTS not suppositions!
I am assuming you are of the same mindset ... ignorant of the "stock market rate"...

For the record... Over the past 112 years the DJIA has grown at an average of 7.2% a year.

Yes there have been 40 years when there was no gain but losses
BUT 73 years with gains...and again over 112 years an average over 7.25%
Dow Industrial Average Stock Market Index Historical Graph DJIA
So again FACTS NOT guesses....

 

[bendog]

Dude...time to give up. Campy is covering his ears and hollering, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 5-year-old.

No, that is what some of you guys who promote privatization do. It comes from frustration that you get when you realize that while there is no argument that if the funds invested in SS were instead invested in traditional investments the traditionally invested funds would do much better, but the add on of including the insurance, or if you prefer, survivor benefits and disability benefits that would have to be paid for in a privatization plan kill the privatization concept. The cost amounts to somewhere in the neighbor of a $150 per month in the early year and increases with age. It quickly reaches $200 per month and the future premium increases are somewhat unpredictable and controlled by the providers, insurance companies. And these estimates are for plans that very well may not even come close to the benefits currently provided by SS.
So how do the comparative charts and numbers look when you handicap the private investment side by deducting the funds available for investment by a couple of hundred dollars per month. You do not get a return on those funds unless you die or become disabled. They completely vanish at the end of a specific date. If you have not died or become disabled the funds are simply gone.

Do you care to back that up with some actual examples of premiums?

Because if at age 22 one got life and disability insurance the premiums would not rise over time.

Face it private insurance is much much better than government insurance and even if one deducted the premiums a privately owned account would vastly outperform SS

Not so, when you get older with pre-existing health conditions. Life insurers don't want you

 

[healthmyths]

Dude...time to give up. Campy is covering his ears and hollering, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 5-year-old.

No, that is what some of you guys who promote privatization do. It comes from frustration that you get when you realize that while there is no argument that if the funds invested in SS were instead invested in traditional investments the traditionally invested funds would do much better, but the add on of including the insurance, or if you prefer, survivor benefits and disability benefits that would have to be paid for in a privatization plan kill the privatization concept. The cost amounts to somewhere in the neighbor of a $150 per month in the early year and increases with age. It quickly reaches $200 per month and the future premium increases are somewhat unpredictable and controlled by the providers, insurance companies. And these estimates are for plans that very well may not even come close to the benefits currently provided by SS.
So how do the comparative charts and numbers look when you handicap the private investment side by deducting the funds available for investment by a couple of hundred dollars per month. You do not get a return on those funds unless you die or become disabled. They completely vanish at the end of a specific date. If you have not died or become disabled the funds are simply gone.

Do you care to back that up with some actual examples of premiums?

Because if at age 22 one got life and disability insurance the premiums would not rise over time.

Face it private insurance is much much better than government insurance and even if one deducted the premiums a privately owned account would vastly outperform SS

All the companies have online instant calculators. I used a 32 year old earning $40,000 per yer in several different states. At an estimate 15% of income invested each month the investment figure is $500 per month. That means the funds available for investment will be 20% to 25% less with the privatized plan when the insurance plans are deducted. You say face it, a privately owned investment portfolio given a 20 to 25 percent disadvantage can outperform SS. I am not convinced you can do that. Vastly outperform? I hear the claim but I don't see how those claims really make sense.

Just a reminder... THE thread states that if a worker at 25 years old is given the choice.. CHOICE
to direct the SS deductions from paycheck AND what the employer pays into the local bank and NOT
the "risky stock market:" OK?
So given the worker ALREADY has employer paid disability.
Has a $1,000,000 20 year level term life insurance policy cost out of pocket: $51/month.
Summary of below:
$336,770 accumulated at rate of 2%
$637,333 at rate of 5%
$1,024,522 at rate of 7% (Average for 112 years of the DJIA..)
So using $637,333..
$400,000 annuity will pay for 20 years at age 65.. $20,000 per year (exactly what SS would pay out)
$200,000 paid out 20 years $10,000 for emergencies, health care,etc.
$37,000 left over...

 

[healthmyths]

Dude...time to give up. Campy is covering his ears and hollering, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 5-year-old.

No, that is what some of you guys who promote privatization do. It comes from frustration that you get when you realize that while there is no argument that if the funds invested in SS were instead invested in traditional investments the traditionally invested funds would do much better, but the add on of including the insurance, or if you prefer, survivor benefits and disability benefits that would have to be paid for in a privatization plan kill the privatization concept. The cost amounts to somewhere in the neighbor of a $150 per month in the early year and increases with age. It quickly reaches $200 per month and the future premium increases are somewhat unpredictable and controlled by the providers, insurance companies. And these estimates are for plans that very well may not even come close to the benefits currently provided by SS.
So how do the comparative charts and numbers look when you handicap the private investment side by deducting the funds available for investment by a couple of hundred dollars per month. You do not get a return on those funds unless you die or become disabled. They completely vanish at the end of a specific date. If you have not died or become disabled the funds are simply gone.

Do you care to back that up with some actual examples of premiums?

Because if at age 22 one got life and disability insurance the premiums would not rise over time.

Face it private insurance is much much better than government insurance and even if one deducted the premiums a privately owned account would vastly outperform SS

Not so, when you get older with pre-existing health conditions. Life insurers don't want you

YES once again though YOU ARE USING THE EXCEPTION as the RULE!!!!
FACTS!! FACTS!!!!
First of all Idiots like Obama make this EXTREMELY EXAGGERATED statement:
Since about 85 percent of Americans already have insurance, many through large group plans, this would not be a concern.
Obama says half of Americans have a pre-existing condition PolitiFact
85% of 310 million is 263 million WITH insurance thus "pre-existing" doesn't apply... so where are the 150 million Obama???

Then further FACTS!!!
Insurance industry studies show that one in eight applicants for private health insurance have preexisting conditions that affect their eligibility or premiums.
This gives a total of 1.5 million Americans who were denied health insurance or paid higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions.
Obama s Pre-existing Conditions Whopper - Forbes

AGAIN!!! YOU are using the exception!!! 1.5 million were denied OR PAY higher premiums!!!

But this is the problem with people like you ... continually using hyperbole. Exceptions and make it sound like the rule. Ferguson, MO... school shootings... ALL types of narratives, EXAGGERATED!
Blown out of proportion i.e. your statement.."pre-existing health conditions"
A) YES when OLDER we are using 25 year old!
B) FACTS.. less then 1.5 million refused or pay higher premiums BUT NOT everyone right???

 

[Camp]

Dude...time to give up. Campy is covering his ears and hollering, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 5-year-old.

No, that is what some of you guys who promote privatization do. It comes from frustration that you get when you realize that while there is no argument that if the funds invested in SS were instead invested in traditional investments the traditionally invested funds would do much better, but the add on of including the insurance, or if you prefer, survivor benefits and disability benefits that would have to be paid for in a privatization plan kill the privatization concept. The cost amounts to somewhere in the neighbor of a $150 per month in the early year and increases with age. It quickly reaches $200 per month and the future premium increases are somewhat unpredictable and controlled by the providers, insurance companies. And these estimates are for plans that very well may not even come close to the benefits currently provided by SS.
So how do the comparative charts and numbers look when you handicap the private investment side by deducting the funds available for investment by a couple of hundred dollars per month. You do not get a return on those funds unless you die or become disabled. They completely vanish at the end of a specific date. If you have not died or become disabled the funds are simply gone.

Do you care to back that up with some actual examples of premiums?

Because if at age 22 one got life and disability insurance the premiums would not rise over time.

Face it private insurance is much much better than government insurance and even if one deducted the premiums a privately owned account would vastly outperform SS

All the companies have online instant calculators. I used a 32 year old earning $40,000 per yer in several different states. At an estimate 15% of income invested each month the investment figure is $500 per month. That means the funds available for investment will be 20% to 25% less with the privatized plan when the insurance plans are deducted. You say face it, a privately owned investment portfolio given a 20 to 25 percent disadvantage can outperform SS. I am not convinced you can do that. Vastly outperform? I hear the claim but I don't see how those claims really make sense.

Just a reminder... THE thread states that if a worker at 25 years old is given the choice.. CHOICE
to direct the SS deductions from paycheck AND what the employer pays into the local bank and NOT
the "risky stock market:" OK

So given the worker ALREADY has employer paid disability.

Has a $1,000,000 20 year level term life insurance policy cost out of pocket: $51/month.
Summary of below:
$336,770 accumulated at rate of 2%
$637,333 at rate of 5%
$1,024,522 at rate of 7% (Average for 112 years of the DJIA..)
So using $637,333..
$400,000 annuity will pay for 20 years at age 65.. $20,000 per year (exactly what SS would pay out)
$200,000 paid out 20 years $10,000 for emergencies, health care,etc.
$37,000 left over...

View attachment 31399

Employers provide workman's compensation which is disability insurance for when you become disabled while working on the job. Most disabilities come from illness, not accidents. How many people do you think work for companies that provide the kind of disability insurance that covers people who have strokes or cancer? The term life insurance is cheap compared to the disability insurance.
One way or another you always need a gimmick or some kind of misinformation to make the privatization scheme work. This time we leave out the cost of disability insurance with the notion that everyone, or even a small majority of workers have disability insurance that will pay a worker a life time of wages if they get sick. Does anyone believe that? Does anyone believe that even a small minority of workers have that kind of coverage?

 

[bendog]

Dude...time to give up. Campy is covering his ears and hollering, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" like a 5-year-old.

No, that is what some of you guys who promote privatization do. It comes from frustration that you get when you realize that while there is no argument that if the funds invested in SS were instead invested in traditional investments the traditionally invested funds would do much better, but the add on of including the insurance, or if you prefer, survivor benefits and disability benefits that would have to be paid for in a privatization plan kill the privatization concept. The cost amounts to somewhere in the neighbor of a $150 per month in the early year and increases with age. It quickly reaches $200 per month and the future premium increases are somewhat unpredictable and controlled by the providers, insurance companies. And these estimates are for plans that very well may not even come close to the benefits currently provided by SS.
So how do the comparative charts and numbers look when you handicap the private investment side by deducting the funds available for investment by a couple of hundred dollars per month. You do not get a return on those funds unless you die or become disabled. They completely vanish at the end of a specific date. If you have not died or become disabled the funds are simply gone.

Do you care to back that up with some actual examples of premiums?

Because if at age 22 one got life and disability insurance the premiums would not rise over time.

Face it private insurance is much much better than government insurance and even if one deducted the premiums a privately owned account would vastly outperform SS

Not so, when you get older with pre-existing health conditions. Life insurers don't want you

YES once again though YOU ARE USING THE EXCEPTION as the RULE!!!!
FACTS!! FACTS!!!!
First of all Idiots like Obama make this EXTREMELY EXAGGERATED statement:
Since about 85 percent of Americans already have insurance, many through large group plans, this would not be a concern.
Obama says half of Americans have a pre-existing condition PolitiFact
85% of 310 million is 263 million WITH insurance thus "pre-existing" doesn't apply... so where are the 150 million Obama???

Then further FACTS!!!
Insurance industry studies show that one in eight applicants for private health insurance have preexisting conditions that affect their eligibility or premiums.
This gives a total of 1.5 million Americans who were denied health insurance or paid higher premiums due to pre-existing conditions.
Obama s Pre-existing Conditions Whopper - Forbes

AGAIN!!! YOU are using the exception!!! 1.5 million were denied OR PAY higher premiums!!!

But this is the problem with people like you ... continually using hyperbole. Exceptions and make it sound like the rule. Ferguson, MO... school shootings... ALL types of narratives, EXAGGERATED!
Blown out of proportion i.e. your statement.."pre-existing health conditions"
A) YES when OLDER we are using 25 year old!
B) FACTS.. less then 1.5 million refused or pay higher premiums BUT NOT everyone right???

First, what the f are you talking about? The issue was health insurance v. SS survivor benefits and costs.
Second, you are now verging into forcing Americans to buy private insurance. We've been down this road, though apparently you have selective amnesia.

And YOU use the word hyperbole? DUDE, you are a hyperbole.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

New workers, dipshit.

Weird, you mean conservative policies are hurting 'new workers' like libs have said for nearly 35 years? I agree

Exactly, Social Security is hurting new workers. Oh, wait, that wasn't a conservative policy. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More to the point, a standard 60% equity / 40% bond portfolio in this country has outperformed a 100% government bond portfolio over every 50 period for at least 150 years.

How about BETWEEN those 50 year periods? Say the great depression or 1960's to 80's

Every 50 year period means every period of 50 years, you dolt.
That would be, for instance, 1901-1950, 1902-1951, 1903-1952, 1904-1953.....1951-2000, 1952-2001 etc.etc.etc.
Simple enough for you to understand yet?

 

[Avatar4321]

You're right. There is no risk. Congress won't ever allow it.

 

[Dad2three]

Every 50 year period means every period of 50 years, you dolt.
That would be, for instance, 1901-1950, 1902-1951, 1903-1952, 1904-1953.....1951-2000, 1952-2001 etc.etc.etc.
Simple enough for you to understand yet?

LINK? lol

 

[Dad2three]

New workers, dipshit.

Weird, you mean conservative policies are hurting 'new workers' like libs have said for nearly 35 years? I agree

Exactly, Social Security is hurting new workers. Oh, wait, that wasn't a conservative policy. LOL!

Sure, SS that keeps almost 50% of seniors out of poverty sounds horrible. They should have a tax cut instead right? lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Every 50 year period means every period of 50 years, you dolt.
That would be, for instance, 1901-1950, 1902-1951, 1903-1952, 1904-1953.....1951-2000, 1952-2001 etc.etc.etc.
Simple enough for you to understand yet?

LINK? lol

You need a link to count to 50? LOL!

 

[Dad2three]

Again...FACTS not suppositions!
I am assuming you are of the same mindset ... ignorant of the "stock market rate"...

For the record... Over the past 112 years the DJIA has grown at an average of 7.2% a year.

Yes there have been 40 years when there was no gain but losses
BUT 73 years with gains...and again over 112 years an average over 7.25%
Dow Industrial Average Stock Market Index Historical Graph DJIA
So again FACTS NOT guesses....

Oh, the bubble economy. Facts

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

New workers, dipshit.

Weird, you mean conservative policies are hurting 'new workers' like libs have said for nearly 35 years? I agree

Exactly, Social Security is hurting new workers. Oh, wait, that wasn't a conservative policy. LOL!

Sure, SS that keeps almost 50% of seniors out of poverty sounds horrible. They should have a tax cut instead right? lol

You're right, a private account with a higher return that kept more seniors out of poverty would be a terrible idea.