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

[Dad2three]

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.

So you are arguing timing matters.

How did Chiles privatization work out, as conservatives promised or not?

 

[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

You need a link to count to 50? LOL!

YOUR premise. You can't prove it? I'm shocked!

 

[Dad2three]

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

Worked so well when the conservatives privatized SS in Chile right? 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....

Yeah, that wasn't the premise of his post try rereading it. So SS will be invested in the DJIA? ONE policy conservatives have EVER been correct about since the US Founding? Just one?

Seems their premises NEVER work as promised. Look to Chile's privatization for a good example!

 

[Toro]

So you are arguing timing matters.

No. I'm arguing the opposite. Over very long periods of time, it hasn't mattered where you bought. At the top before the market crash to the end of 70s was the worst 50 year period for stocks - at least since 1870 - and they still generated strong returns.

If SS is supposed to last forever, then it doesn't matter when you buy stocks.

I don't know about Chile but the privatization of Canada has worked out fabulously.

 

[Dad2three]

No. I'm arguing the opposite. Over very long periods of time, it hasn't mattered where you bought. At the top before the market crash to the end of 70s was the worst 50 year period for stocks - at least since 1870 - and they still generated strong returns.

Until the merry go round stops. Think wall street today is valued correctly?

How did it work out in Chile? Does privatizing it cost MUCH more to administer?

 

[billyerock1991]

here's what I know about retirement with the stock market ... in 2001 I watch my account go from 980,000 dollars for my retirement go to 89,000 dollars

How did this happen?

The S&P 500 dropped by what about half, how did your account drop by 90%? Even if you were 100% in NASDAQ you wouldn't have lost that much.

Sounds like what you need to learn about is how risk relates to diversification across asset classes.

are you just plain stupid or naturally stupid .... I side on the side that you're naturally stupid

 

[billyerock1991]

So you are arguing timing matters.

No. I'm arguing the opposite. Over very long periods of time, it hasn't mattered where you bought. At the top before the market crash to the end of 70s was the worst 50 year period for stocks - at least since 1870 - and they still generated strong returns.

If SS is supposed to last forever, then it doesn't matter when you buy stocks.

I don't know about Chile but the privatization of Canada has worked out fabulously.

heres what you don't get ... this happens more then once with stocks ... in 2001 and in 2006 when the marked took a dive.. for the corporation to save it self from financial reuin they filed bankruptsy causing all stock owners to lose everything they had ... for you to imply through time they all turn around this is true right after they dump all their responsibilities to stock owners... you have no Idea what you are saying or implying

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Worked so well when the conservatives privatized SS in Chile right? lol

And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

What the Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years is that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would have made under Social Security. And that model could work for the roughly 25 percent of public employees—about 6 million people—who are part of state and local government retirement plans. It could also serve as a model for reforming Social Security.

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

No. I'm arguing the opposite. Over very long periods of time, it hasn't mattered where you bought. At the top before the market crash to the end of 70s was the worst 50 year period for stocks - at least since 1870 - and they still generated strong returns.

If SS is supposed to last forever, then it doesn't matter when you buy stocks.

I don't know about Chile but the privatization of Canada has worked out fabulously.

You mean Canada that started in 1966 and went from 1.8% contribution level to 9.9% in those years?



The bottom line on privatization of public pensions in Canada So far, policy makers in Canada have rejected calls to abolish the CPP and replace it with a mandatory system of individual savings accounts. And Stockwell Day, as Treasurer of Alberta, was unable to convince the other finance ministers to agree to a limited form of opting out of the public plan. Polls show strong support for the continuance of the CPP as a public pension plan. But there is no doubt that pressure for privatization will continue.

Significantly, none of the advocates of privatization claims that it would ensure adequate incomes for the seniors of the future. In fact, even the World Bank admits that “mandatory savings schemes can still leave considerable old age poverty.” Pensions generated from such schemes may fall below subsistence levels because of inflation or unexpectedly low returns. And low-income workers may never accumulate enough in their pension accounts to support themselves in old age, the Bank notes.


CHILE

"Experts who have looked at Chile’s mandatory private savings scheme have raised serious concerns about it, including the high cost of the scheme; the low coverage and the large number of vulnerable workers who are excluded; the inadequate benefits provided by the scheme; and the systemic bias against women. Low-income workers can’t afford the high contributions and many are in default.


It has been estimated that for the average worker, fees, commissions and other charges
consume well over one third of contributions



UK's:

Personal pensions were individual savings plans, sold mainly by insurance companies
and very similar to Canada’s RRSPs. Aggressive marketing by the insurance companies
persuaded two million people to opt out of the public earnings-related pension plan in
favour of individual savings accounts, even though the pensions many of them will receive at retirement will be less than they would have received under the public pension plan. People were also persuaded to opt out of good defined benefit workplace pension plans in favour of inferior personal savings accounts where no pension was guaran-teed. The scandal that followed, euphemistically known as “the mis-selling of personalpensions,” resulted in insurance companies being fined an estimated £11 billion or about $23.3 billion at current exchange rates.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/si...ons/National_Office_Pubs/pensions_summary.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. I'm arguing the opposite. Over very long periods of time, it hasn't mattered where you bought. At the top before the market crash to the end of 70s was the worst 50 year period for stocks - at least since 1870 - and they still generated strong returns.

Until the merry go round stops. Think wall street today is valued correctly?

How did it work out in Chile? Does privatizing it cost MUCH more to administer?

Until the merry go round stops.

That's the nice thing about a political merry go round, you can always hike taxes on current workers. LOL!

 

[Dad2three]

And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

What the Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years is that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would have made under Social Security. And that model could work for the roughly 25 percent of public employees—about 6 million people—who are part of state and local government retirement plans. It could also serve as a model for reforming Social Security.

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered - Forbes

NOT Galveston again

Privatized Social Security System Cited By GOP Candidates Works For The Rich, But Is ‘Very Bad’ For Everyone Else


For the highest-earning workers in the Gulf Coast county, the personal accounts have yielded nearly double what they might have collected under Social Security. But according to independent studies, the results have been less favorable to those on the lower end of the income spectrum.

In 1999, the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) separately examined the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity: The lower one’s income and the longer one lived after retirement, the less advantage there was to participating in the program compared with Social Security. Also, Social Security payments increased with inflation, while payments under the Galveston plan did not.

“If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”



“Low-income working persons do not receive anything approaching the kind of protection they receive under Social Security”



Privatized Social Security System Cited By GOP Candidates Works For The Rich But Is Very Bad For Everyone Else ThinkProgress




The General Accounting Office and the Social Security Administration conducted the most current comparative studies of the Alternate Plan and Social Security in 1999. The G.A.O. report noted “fundamental differences in the purpose and structure of the two approaches.”

...Even Mr. Holbrook has outlived his Alternate Plan benefits. When he retired 15 years ago, he decided to receive $1,500 to $2,000 from his Alternate Plan account every month for 10 years. Now, his Alternate Plan account is empty.

Fortunately, Mr. Holbrook has other savings and, ultimately, $1,300 a month in Social Security benefits from his 27 years of contributions before his county dropped out of the program.

“It was a mistake to only take it for 10 years,” he said. “It should be over a lifetime, like Social Security.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...curity-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Dad2three]

No. I'm arguing the opposite. Over very long periods of time, it hasn't mattered where you bought. At the top before the market crash to the end of 70s was the worst 50 year period for stocks - at least since 1870 - and they still generated strong returns.

Until the merry go round stops. Think wall street today is valued correctly?

How did it work out in Chile? Does privatizing it cost MUCH more to administer?

Until the merry go round stops.

That's the nice thing about a political merry go round, you can always hike taxes on current workers. LOL!

Called pay go...

 

[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...

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?

FACTS!!!
Chris Quinn, vice president for the employee group benefits division at Sun Life Financial, said another way to think about it was that the premium was 1 percent of someone’s salary in a group plan and 3.5 percent of that salary in an individual plan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/y...surance-is-necessary.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

25 year old new worker BUYS individual disability at 3.5% of $30,000 salary: monthly cost:$88.00

Another FACT... from : Whats my PDQ
That's what your Personal Disability Quotient (PDQ) calculates—
Our 25 year old office worker 5'9" 200 lbs doesn't smoke any problems..
Here are your chances of being injured or becoming ill and unable to work before you retire for...
If you do become disabled for 3 months, 18%
your chances of the disability lasting 5 years or longer
The average length of a long-term disability 32%
The average length of a long-term disability for someone like you 74 months
he CDA PDQ Calculator© uses a variety of actuarial data and assumptions to determine the estimated odds of disability. The Council for Disability Awareness makes no representation to the accuracy of the estimated odds.

My point on the above is again... YOU are USING EXCEPTIONS to penalize the RULE!
This means people like you take the 18% possibilities to penalize the 82% that won't have the problem!
And as result you destroy the opportunities for the majority BY making rules and regulations for the minority!
This is the biggest problem our country has become a country of the few dictating the majority!
So in this specific case YOU are using the exception the 18% chance to ruin the opportunities of the majority!
Do you understand that this whole attitude is destroying people's will to become self sufficient!
What would have been our country's economic well being if instead of have 2.5 workers supporting
1 retired person.. WE had ONE retired person supporting himself with accumulation over 40 years of
working? One person with privatized accumulation of 40 years over $500,000 to do with what that individual wants to do ...regardless of the nanny state wanting to tax this $500,000 the individual can do what they WANT!!
But see this is the basic fundamental divide..chasm between people like you and me!
YOU want to drag EVERYONE down to a common level.. I want to RAISE everyone to the level they want! You want to live in a hovel.. like Obama's brother... YOUR choice!
YOU want to live as a hypocrite Bill Gates who made it on his own but now wants to make EVERYONE like you a common level.. person depending on a cubicle worker in D.C. telling you how to live whether you are in NY or Little Rock... YOU and the Gates of the world want standardization,womb to tomb.. I want to see you and others be self-sufficient what ever that floats your boat!

 

[bendog]

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

Worked so well when the conservatives privatized SS in Chile right? lol

And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

What the Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years is that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would have made under Social Security. And that model could work for the roughly 25 percent of public employees—about 6 million people—who are part of state and local government retirement plans. It could also serve as a model for reforming Social Security.

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered - Forbes

That's interesting, and so is Canada's. But, I don't think that's actual "privatization" as the OP hyperbolizes. Rather, these retirement systems work more like state workers' plans, and under the original SS act, states had the option to carve out govt workers from Soc Sec. Essentially, it's a defined contribution plan. The danger of those is seen in today's public employees plans and the failure to fully fund them with payments from state legislatures and levies on pay of workers. I'm not knee jerk against the concept, but politicians tend to promise more then they'll tax for.

 

[healthmyths]

And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

What the Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years is that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would have made under Social Security. And that model could work for the roughly 25 percent of public employees—about 6 million people—who are part of state and local government retirement plans. It could also serve as a model for reforming Social Security.

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered - Forbes

NOT Galveston again

Privatized Social Security System Cited By GOP Candidates Works For The Rich, But Is ‘Very Bad’ For Everyone Else


For the highest-earning workers in the Gulf Coast county, the personal accounts have yielded nearly double what they might have collected under Social Security. But according to independent studies, the results have been less favorable to those on the lower end of the income spectrum.

In 1999, the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) separately examined the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity: The lower one’s income and the longer one lived after retirement, the less advantage there was to participating in the program compared with Social Security. Also, Social Security payments increased with inflation, while payments under the Galveston plan did not.

“If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”



“Low-income working persons do not receive anything approaching the kind of protection they receive under Social Security”



Privatized Social Security System Cited By GOP Candidates Works For The Rich But Is Very Bad For Everyone Else ThinkProgress




The General Accounting Office and the Social Security Administration conducted the most current comparative studies of the Alternate Plan and Social Security in 1999. The G.A.O. report noted “fundamental differences in the purpose and structure of the two approaches.”

...Even Mr. Holbrook has outlived his Alternate Plan benefits. When he retired 15 years ago, he decided to receive $1,500 to $2,000 from his Alternate Plan account every month for 10 years. Now, his Alternate Plan account is empty.

Fortunately, Mr. Holbrook has other savings and, ultimately, $1,300 a month in Social Security benefits from his 27 years of contributions before his county dropped out of the program.

“It was a mistake to only take it for 10 years,” he said. “It should be over a lifetime, like Social Security.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...curity-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all

If Congress voted to privatize Social Security, Mr. Gornto and Mr. Holbrook said they would recommend using a banking model similar to the Alternate Plan, but with one important caveat:

They would suggest removing the option to withdraw funds in a lump sum.
“Most people can’t handle a sizable lump sum when they retire, and they end up spending it on a new house and new cars and everything else,” Mr. Holbrook said.
The lump-sum option is one of the biggest problems in the Alternate Plan, Mr. Kingson said, because “people end up unprotected.” If retirees do not choose the lifetime annuity, they could outlive their benefits and end up wards of the state.

“It was a mistake to only take it for 10 years,” he said. “It should be over a lifetime, like Social Security.”

HE DECIDED THAT!!! THAT was HIS CHOICE!!!
AND MR. HOLBROOK Also said:
“It shouldn’t be a pay-as-you-go system, where children and grandchildren are paying for your Social Security,” said Ray Holbrook, a former Galveston County judge who led the charge to opt out of Social Security during his 28-year tenure. “That’s why it’s bankrupt, and that’s why Rick Perry says it’s a Ponzi scheme, which I agree with.”

ONE Story! ONE anecdote... Tell me why ONE story one anecdote should affect the majority?

 

[Toro]

No. I'm arguing the opposite. Over very long periods of time, it hasn't mattered where you bought. At the top before the market crash to the end of 70s was the worst 50 year period for stocks - at least since 1870 - and they still generated strong returns.

Until the merry go round stops. Think wall street today is valued correctly?

How did it work out in Chile? Does privatizing it cost MUCH more to administer?

The merry go round never stops. That's the point. From 1929 to 1932, the stock market fell 90%. Yet, from the end of 1929, through The Great Depression, World War II, the war in Korea, the war in Vietnam, Watergate, stagflation, the Kuwait war, the collapse of the tech bubble, 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global financial crisis, stocks have returned 8.7% a year.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:

• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

What the Alternate Plan has demonstrated over 30 years is that personal retirement accounts work, with many retirees making more than twice what they would have made under Social Security. And that model could work for the roughly 25 percent of public employees—about 6 million people—who are part of state and local government retirement plans. It could also serve as a model for reforming Social Security.

How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered - Forbes

NOT Galveston again

Privatized Social Security System Cited By GOP Candidates Works For The Rich, But Is ‘Very Bad’ For Everyone Else


For the highest-earning workers in the Gulf Coast county, the personal accounts have yielded nearly double what they might have collected under Social Security. But according to independent studies, the results have been less favorable to those on the lower end of the income spectrum.

In 1999, the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) separately examined the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity: The lower one’s income and the longer one lived after retirement, the less advantage there was to participating in the program compared with Social Security. Also, Social Security payments increased with inflation, while payments under the Galveston plan did not.

“If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”



“Low-income working persons do not receive anything approaching the kind of protection they receive under Social Security”



Privatized Social Security System Cited By GOP Candidates Works For The Rich But Is Very Bad For Everyone Else ThinkProgress




The General Accounting Office and the Social Security Administration conducted the most current comparative studies of the Alternate Plan and Social Security in 1999. The G.A.O. report noted “fundamental differences in the purpose and structure of the two approaches.”

...Even Mr. Holbrook has outlived his Alternate Plan benefits. When he retired 15 years ago, he decided to receive $1,500 to $2,000 from his Alternate Plan account every month for 10 years. Now, his Alternate Plan account is empty.

Fortunately, Mr. Holbrook has other savings and, ultimately, $1,300 a month in Social Security benefits from his 27 years of contributions before his county dropped out of the program.

“It was a mistake to only take it for 10 years,” he said. “It should be over a lifetime, like Social Security.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...curity-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all

A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

I know you're a liberal and bad at math, but $1826 is much larger than $1007.
$3600 is much larger than $1540.

 

[healthmyths]

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....

Yeah, that wasn't the premise of his post try rereading it. So SS will be invested in the DJIA? ONE policy conservatives have EVER been correct about since the US Founding? Just one?

Seems their premises NEVER work as promised. Look to Chile's privatization for a good example!

See... you guys are so f..king stupid!
I'm going to yell to get your attention!!!
THERE IS NO WAY TO INVEST IN THE DJIA!!!! It is an AVERAGE!
YOU can invest in the stocks that make up the DJIA... BUT the DJIA is the average of select stocks
prices at the end of the trading day. And over the 112 years of the DJIA the stocks that make up the
DJIA (and the stocks have changed over the years) have had an average growth over 112 years of
7.2% over the 112 years.
BUT THERE IS NO way to invest in the "DJIA"!!!

 

[Toro]

No. I'm arguing the opposite. Over very long periods of time, it hasn't mattered where you bought. At the top before the market crash to the end of 70s was the worst 50 year period for stocks - at least since 1870 - and they still generated strong returns.

If SS is supposed to last forever, then it doesn't matter when you buy stocks.

I don't know about Chile but the privatization of Canada has worked out fabulously.

You mean Canada that started in 1966 and went from 1.8% contribution level to 9.9% in those years?



The bottom line on privatization of public pensions in Canada So far, policy makers in Canada have rejected calls to abolish the CPP and replace it with a mandatory system of individual savings accounts. And Stockwell Day, as Treasurer of Alberta, was unable to convince the other finance ministers to agree to a limited form of opting out of the public plan. Polls show strong support for the continuance of the CPP as a public pension plan. But there is no doubt that pressure for privatization will continue.

Your highly politically biased article doesn't seem to realize that the Canada Pension Plan is already privatized.

CPPIB Canada Pension Plan Investment Board